Transcript Highlights:

• Now most of the programmatic EIS is a detailed analysis that looks at resources in detail.
• Did your analysis contemplate those two distinct?
• Did your analysis contemplate those two distinct?
• , $3.5 million for fiscal year 2023, and $3.6 million in fiscal year 2024.
• year 22 of $2.5 million, $3.5 for fiscal year 23, and $3.6 million in fiscal $2.4.24.

Summary: The committee held a work session on state environmental policy act (SEPA) implementation and carryout bags. Ecology staff Diane Buterak described the Clean Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEISs) completed for utility-scale solar, onshore wind, and green hydrogen, plus a new PEIS underway for sustainable aviation fuel. She explained that PEISs provide broad planning-level analysis to help developers and agencies avoid or mitigate impacts, but do not replace project-level review. Members asked about permitting timelines, greenhouse gas emissions from different hydrogen production methods, water use, agricultural land conversion, battery fire risk, and tribal consultation. Buterak said the PEISs identify potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures, including fire response planning, early tribal outreach, and agrovoltaics as an option for solar projects. EFSEC’s Amy Hofkimer then presented the transmission-facility programmatic EIS required by SB 5165 for 230 kV and higher transmission projects. She said the statewide review covers new lines and certain upgrades/modifications, analyzes impacts to water, cultural and tribal resources, habitat, and other areas, and uses general measures, design considerations, avoidance criteria, and sensitivity maps to guide siting and corridor planning. She said the final document would be issued in early October. Questions focused on reconductoring, tribal lands, scenic areas, and whether the review could affect existing lines crossing tribal lands. A Grant County planning director, Jim Anderson Cook, said Ecology’s PEIS would help with cumulative impacts for clustered solar projects, but noted tight local review timelines and the need for strong pre-application coordination, especially on cultural resource studies and decommissioning plans. Yakama Nation attorney Shona Leverett argued SEPA is only an assessment tool and said tribes face barriers from short comment periods, limited confidential tribal input, weak cumulative impact analysis, and challenges in the FSEC process; she urged better upfront developer diligence and more effective tribal coordination. Puget Sound Energy’s Sarah Leverett said the utility needs efficient and predictable permitting to meet clean energy mandates while maintaining reliable service and aging infrastructure. She described the scale of needed clean energy and transmission buildout, including a 10-year process for the Energize Eastside transmission rebuild, and said more consistent SEPA and PEIS processes could help. Members asked about future generation sources, reliability, and hydropower as a firming resource; she said PSE is pursuing an “all of the above” approach and would welcome more firm, dispatchable clean energy options. The committee then shifted to carryout bags. Staff Jacob Lipson and Tracy Taylor reviewed Washington’s bag law, its preemption of local ordinances, the current 8-cent charge, the scheduled increase to 12 cents, and the 2025 change delaying the 4-mil thickness requirement until 2028 while adding a temporary 4-cent penalty for thicker bags. Ecology’s Peter Lyon said the agency emphasizes education and complaint-based enforcement, has received 872 reports, and has not yet imposed any fines. Commerce’s Kirk Esmond summarized a WSU study finding fewer plastic bags distributed but more plastic by weight, and said Commerce and Ecology support keeping the 2.25-mil standard and not allowing thinner single-use bags again. Retail industry testimony from Brandon Housekeeper said grocers comply with the law but oppose the added 4-cent penalty and thicker-bag requirement, citing higher costs and confusion in the policy changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• I’m here to talk about the fiscal note.
• We’ve discussed it with the fiscal office.
• It has no fiscal impact. It has no physical impact.
• So that's the only way the analysis was done for the fiscal note.
• That was not part of the analysis.

Summary: The Finance Committee met on May 27, 2026, with six members present and took up a series of House bills, most of them dealing with education funding, criminal justice staffing, transportation, health care access, and economic development. HB 325 was reported favorably after testimony that it would expand TOPS eligibility by allowing dual-enrollment credits to satisfy eligibility criteria and by making part-time students eligible for TOPS Tech, with supporters saying the program has been underused and the change would help working students. HB 719 was amended and reported favorably to increase assistant district attorney positions in various judicial districts; the Louisiana District Attorneys Association said the changes were based on workload data and local input, and members discussed the need to coordinate any expansion with public defender funding. The committee also reported HB 749 favorably, which would move Louisiana’s 529 savings accounts to a more secure online platform after a cyber incident, and HB 1028 favorably, which concerns transportation reimbursement for providers and was described as already subject to appropriation. Several bills focused on food access and local economic development. HB 1222, the Grocery Initiative Act, was reported favorably to let LED use existing grant resources to map food deserts and develop a program, with members noting it could return for funding later if needed. HB 1194 was amended and reported favorably to define food deserts and direct the LSU AgCenter and the Department of Agriculture and Forestry to identify and map them, with authors emphasizing it was a study and not a government-run grocery program. HB 755, which would create IDIQ contracting for architects and engineers on smaller state projects, was reported favorably with no fiscal impact. HB 823, a local diversion pilot for Orleans Parish, was also reported favorably after the fiscal note was revised to remove state impact and reflect only local costs. The committee spent substantial time on HB 488, a proposal from Plaquemines Parish to use severance-tax revenue to help buy out a private toll concession on the parish’s bridge. The author and local officials described severe toll burdens, economic harm to local businesses, and what they called an unfair contract, but members noted the bill was not funded and ultimately deferred it without a motion. HB 797, the Bayou Gold/Louisiana Sound Money Act, was amended to make implementation subject to appropriation and then reported favorably. The committee also took up HB 198, which would raise Medicaid reimbursement for ambulatory surgery centers for certain outpatient procedures; after extensive discussion about fiscal notes, access to care, and potential long-term savings, the bill was amended to narrow its scope and make implementation subject to appropriation, then reported favorably as amended. The meeting ended with the chair noting it would be the committee’s last meeting and asking members to spread the word.

Transcript Highlights:

• fiscal and walk through the bill. fiscal and walk through the bill.
• <00:44:29.920> transparency establish a fiscal transparency establish a fiscal transparency
• So this section directs MnDOT to enter into an agreement for analysis.
• So this section directs MnDOT to enter into an agreement for analysis.
• Representative: That has always been in the fiscal note.

Bills: HF2438

Keywords: transportation finance, transportation policy, MnDOT, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Department of Public Safety, Metropolitan Council, highway funding, trunk highway fund, county state-aid highway fund, municipal state-aid street fund, state aid roads, local roads, bridge funding, road construction, transit funding, passenger rail, freight rail, aviation, airport development, safe routes to school

Transcript Highlights:

• The financial analysis of the bill finds minimal cost.
• As the staff analysis notes, there are no state costs to this bill.
• According to the analysis, this bill would have minor and absorbable costs.
• As the analysis notes, there are no state costs.
• As the analysis notes, there are no state costs.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee heard a large regular-order agenda and took up several bills with mostly brief presentations and no major debate. AB 2215 by Calderon would extend the time for the Department of Water Resources to fully develop State Water Project water rights to 2046; supporters said it would protect water reliability and affordability for 27 million Californians, while opponents argued it would bypass the Water Board process, set a precedent for other water-rights holders, and potentially enable costly projects like Delta Conveyance. The committee also approved a set of unanimous-support bills for consent and suspense-file measures, then moved through a series of policy bills with generally favorable testimony from sponsors and allied organizations. Among the bills discussed, AB 2038 would extend insurance protections for wildfire victims facing nonrenewal or cancellation of home insurance; AB 2322 would standardize the definition of commercial, industrial, or institutional sites for municipal stormwater permitting; AB 1794 would allow enteral nutrition formulas to be shipped directly to patients’ homes; AB 1696 would clarify that nurse midwives do not need physician supervision within their licensed scope; AB 1860 would let county offices of education use design-build and progressive design-build; AB 1876 would codify nondiscrimination protections in health care coverage; AB 2281 would direct the Office of Election Cybersecurity to consult with researchers and assess resources; AB 2448 would require technology to protect sensitive medical records, including reproductive health data; AB 1994 would require local law enforcement to provide victims information on federal immigration relief options; and AB 1829 would expand allowable uses of CalWORKs student-parent support funds for basic needs and related services. Testimony was largely in support, with a few targeted concerns raised on AB 1696 and AB 2281. The committee took roll-call votes on the bills presented and advanced them, with some members recorded as not voting or voting no on selected measures. It also approved the suspense calendar as read and then opened public comment on bills not presented that day; no members of the public came forward, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The financial analysis of the bill finds minimal cost.
• Modest fiscal impact: first year would be $45,000 for the Department of Insurance.
• As the staff analysis notes, there are no state costs to this bill.
• According to the analysis, this bill would have minor and absorbable costs.
• As the analysis notes, there are no state costs.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee heard a regular order agenda with 101 bills and first took up AB 2215, which would extend the time for the Department of Water Resources to fully develop its State Water Project water rights. The author and supporters argued it would improve water reliability and affordability for millions of Californians and could save ratepayers money, while opponents said it would bypass the Water Board’s administrative process, set a precedent for other water rights holders, and potentially facilitate costly projects like the Delta Conveyance Project. The bill was moved on a do pass vote, with Mr. Hoover voting no and Ms. Krell not voting. The committee then approved two consent calendars and heard several bills with little or no opposition. These included AB 2038 on extending insurance nonrenewal/cancellation protections for wildfire victims; AB 2322 on clarifying which commercial, industrial, or institutional sites are subject to municipal stormwater permits; AB 1794 on direct home shipment of enteral nutrition; AB 1696 on clarifying that nurse midwives do not need physician supervision within their scope of practice; AB 1860 on allowing county offices of education to use design-build methods; AB 1876 on codifying nondiscrimination protections in health care; AB 2281 on election cybersecurity resources; AB 2448 on protecting sensitive medical records and reproductive health data; AB 1994 on providing victims with information about federal immigration relief options; and AB 1829 on expanding how CalWORKs community college funds may be used to support student parents. Most were supported by sponsoring organizations and related stakeholders, with limited opposition noted on AB 1696 and AB 2281. The committee also placed a large suspense calendar on approval, listing dozens of additional bills, and then opened public comment on bills not heard that day. No members of the public came forward, and the hearing was adjourned. Several bills were reported out on roll call votes, with some members not voting or voting no on particular measures, but the transcript does not provide full vote tallies for each bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• And finally, I'll share some quantitative risk analysis.
• And looking at that same stochastic analysis, only 100 of our same...
• And the analysis that we are looking at is essentially roughly a 50%...
• Once that comes in, then we can start doing the analysis of that data.
• We'll look at the cost analysis in detail.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy approved its minutes by roll call vote, then postponed an OSA annual update due to a family emergency. The committee received an Open Public Meetings Act refresher from Assistant Attorney General Kate Adams, who reviewed key compliance points including quorum and serial meetings, notice and agenda rules, executive session limits, public comment requirements, and the consequences of violations. She also noted a litigation hold notice sent to members and provided resources for further guidance. Staff then briefed the committee on E2 Second Substitute House Bill 2034, which restates and terminates LEOFF 1 on June 30, 2029, creates a restated LEOFF 1 funded by transferred assets, and places excess assets into a pension surplus holding account that could later be used by the state. The bill requires DRS to seek IRS guidance, directs OSA to calculate the transfer amount and assess any future unfunded liability, assigns implementation duties to DRS, OSA, the Pension Funding Council, the State Investment Board, and the Treasurer, and requires two SCPP studies on LEOFF 1 medical benefits and policy oversight. OSA’s actuary estimated the transfer to the surplus holding account at about $3.9 billion under current assumptions and said the bill increases the modeled chance of future state contributions if the restated plan falls below 100% funded; members asked about IRS timing, the 2029 transfer date, and whether the 110% buffer is sufficient. The committee also received an update on the LEOFF 1 medical benefits study required by the bill. Staff said the study will examine the administration of pension boards and medical liabilities, likely focusing on medical benefits, and will gather anonymized data from local boards, cities, counties, and related agencies over the next three years. Members and public commenters discussed the number and structure of local boards, whether spouses receive medical benefits, and the possibility of regionalizing or consolidating administration. No action was taken, but staff said they would return with milestones and further updates. Finally, staff outlined a possible Plan 3 study, prompted by DRS, to evaluate whether the original goals of Plan 3 have been met after 30 years. The proposed study would review historical context, member choice outcomes, policy questions, and possible recommendations over a two-year period. The committee also heard an update on new correspondence procedures, including a new online web form, a correspondence log in meeting packets, and removal of correspondence from the public website. During public comment, retiree groups urged the committee to pursue an ongoing COLA for PERS and TRS Plan 1, with interim ad hoc COLAs until then, while LEOFF 1 retirees urged caution about changing the current board structure and emphasized the complexity of medical benefit administration.

Transcript Highlights:

• Right after that is the JLBC fiscal analysis. That only shows up if it's a citizen initiative.
• So any of the other matters, it won't have the fiscal analysis.
• However, JLBC does post on their website a fiscal analysis for measures that they're not required to
• The analysis is adopted. Okay.” “The analysis is adopted. Are there amendments?
• Yes, I move the amendment of the draft analysis for HCR 2048 as—” “...the draft analysis for HCR 2048

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There are negligible fiscal impacts to the bill.
• Any fiscal impacts, as per the analysis, should be minimal.
• Any fiscal impacts, as per the analysis, should be minimal.
• The analysis estimates minor and absorbable cost, HCD.
• CDI estimates Insurance Fund costs of $11,000 in fiscal year 2026-27 and $23,000 in fiscal year 2027-

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 13, 2026, with a large agenda of 196 bills. After establishing quorum, the committee first approved two consent calendars covering numerous bills, then heard a series of author presentations and public testimony. Most measures discussed were housing, public safety, health care, and local government bills, with many authors and sponsors emphasizing that the proposals had minor, absorbable, or no state costs. Among the bills heard were AB 2641 on a sales tax exemption for pawnbroker redemptions; AB 2525 to create a narrow Surplus Lands Act exemption for Mission Bay Park in San Diego; AB 1732 and AB 2433 on student housing and the density bonus law; AB 2055 updating boating safety and enforcement laws; AB 1579 expanding children’s crisis residential options; AB 2139 for an Inland Empire sports-related Surplus Lands Act exemption; AB 2041 on EMS reporting compliance; AB 1973 expanding advanced practice clinicians’ authority for reproductive care; AB 1929 requiring health plan investment disclosures; AB 2700 on utility rates and wildfire victim compensation; AB 1809 removing the sunset on school job order contracting; SB 73 strengthening election security; AB 2418 streamlining commercial building permits; AB 1970 limiting step therapy for serious mental illness and substance use treatment; AB 2361 on peer-to-peer vehicle-sharing liability; AB 1976 streamlining bike and pedestrian project approvals; AB 2110 authorizing local tax increment financing for workforce housing; and AB 2146 easing documentation for supportive housing placements. Testimony was largely in support, often from sponsoring organizations, local governments, housing advocates, health groups, law enforcement, and wildfire survivors. AB 2700 drew especially extensive public support from Camp Fire and Tubbs Fire survivors and local officials, who urged stronger compensation for wildfire victims and relief from utility costs. AB 2034 and AB 1790 were mentioned during public comment as bills with opposition from industry groups, while AB 1903 and SB 417 also drew comment. Several bills were amended or noted as being subject to future amendments, including AB 1732, AB 2041, and AB 2418. The committee took action on the bills as they were heard, generally voting them out on due pass motions, many by roll call and several with members not voting on particular measures. The suspense calendar was then read and deemed approved, and the hearing concluded after public comment on bills not heard that day.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:00:59.440> of looking at the costbenefit analysis of looking at the costbenefit analysis
• created the major costbenefit analysis created the major costbenefit analysis requirement<00:03:
• analysis analysis um<00:18:46.720> that<00:18:47.280> uh<00:18:47.440> that<00:
• The costbenefit analysis want that.
• > responsibility, time uh fiscal responsibility, time uh fiscal responsibility, conservative<00:37

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 936, an author’s bill requiring cost-benefit analysis before agencies move forward with major rulemaking. Chair Nash moved the bill, the A2 author’s amendment was adopted, and the bill was then discussed as amended. The sponsor said the goal was not to eliminate rulemaking, but to require agencies to “show their work” by analyzing costs, benefits, and assumptions before rules are adopted. Supporters, including representatives from Americans for Prosperity and the Pacific Legal Foundation, argued the bill would improve transparency, uniformity, and accountability in rulemaking. They cited federal and other state models, especially Virginia, and said similar requirements already exist in several states. They also pointed to public support for requiring cost-benefit analysis and said the bill could help agencies avoid costly or poorly thought-out regulations, reduce litigation risk, and improve legislative oversight through notice to committees and publication of preliminary and final analyses. Several members raised concerns. Representative Luger Nikolai said cost-benefit analysis is already part of existing law through SONARs and that the legislature, not agencies, should be the first line of review; she also worried the bill would force dollar valuations on qualitative factors such as accessibility. Representative Craft said the bill could allow unelected officials to negate policy choices already made by the legislature if benefits do not exceed costs. Representative Fryberg said the bill appears to require full analysis even for minor housekeeping rules and may overemphasize dollar-based benefits. Chair Nash and supporters responded that the bill is meant to impose a uniform check on agencies and that many current rules already operate without sufficient legislative oversight. The discussion ended with members expressing both support and opposition, and a roll call was requested, though no final vote was included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• What the state pay you guys to do this analysis.
• So my last slide here is our our budget need for the coming fiscal year.
• Not 10.7 million us Sara Lee in fiscal year. 26 27.
• And so we spent the majority of fiscal year. 22 23 doing math.
• We actually at the end of fiscal year. 22 23.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do have the fiscal note.
• And then let me read you from the fiscal note. This fiscal note, although it's got to be probable.
• analysis.
• impact analysis.
• The comptroller had still never provided. a sort of analysis, a sort of fiscal impact. report that you

Bills: HB134, HB135, HB 1109, HB 1243, HB1392, HB1399, HJR99, HB134, HB135

Keywords: sales tax, use tax, local tax, municipal tax, county tax, tax sourcing, place of business, principal business location, small business, retailer, marketplace seller, economic development agreement, Chapter 321, Chapter 323, Tax Code, Texas Comptroller, local sales and use tax, tax jurisdiction, order consummation, ship-to location

Transcript Highlights:

• The project has been in the works since fiscal year 2020-21.
• To not have any analysis that's going to inform.
• No numbers were presented, no cost analysis shared. Reject the return to office.
• It would give you all time to get some type of survey or analysis.
• There are better, fairer ways to address our fiscal challenges.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that you submit sort of a data analysis that you submit sort of a data analysis request<00:37:53.400
• That’s in 645, and that’s the fiscal note.
• Many departments and boards, they have contractors that assist with data analysis.
• One is the fiscal side of it.
• on the fiscal on the fiscal from<01:06:57.000> an<01:06:57.160> Roi<01:06:57.599><

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The working session focused on the New Hampshire Prescription Drug Affordability Board’s budget request and its recent work. Early discussion centered on a technical question about a statutory dedicated fund for donations: members asked why the budget did not show a line item for accepting donations, and DHHS CFO Nathan White explained that the statute already authorizes the fund, but because no revenue has been received yet, it does not appear in the budget. He said any future donations would go through the normal process under RSA 14:30-a, with fiscal committee and Governor and Council approval and a memo to the Department of Revenue Administration. The chair clarified that the account was not a prerequisite to soliciting donations, and White said the fund would supplement, not replace, General Fund support. Kirk Williamson, the board’s executive director, then presented the board’s mission and budget. He said the governor’s budget provides about $256,500 in the first year and slightly more in the second, all General Funds, and that the board had distributed a technical amendment to continue the executive director position. He described the board’s role as analyzing prescription drug costs, identifying savings opportunities, monitoring market trends, promoting transparency, and making recommendations to the legislature and public payers. He also emphasized that the board operates publicly, with live-streamed meetings and a stakeholder advisory council that includes unions, state agencies, Medicaid, corrections, higher education, and other stakeholders. A major topic was the board’s estimate of $6 million in potential savings, based on Medicare’s newly negotiated prices for 10 drugs. Williamson explained that the board used those federal negotiated prices as a benchmark to estimate what New Hampshire public payers might be missing by not having similar leverage, and said the board is trying to build evidence for future recommendations rather than directly setting prices. Members asked how those potential savings could become actual savings, and Williamson said the board is sharing findings through its advisory council and feedback loops, though it has not yet sent a formal recommendation letter to specific purchasers. He also discussed the difference between pharmacy-benefit spending, which relies heavily on PBM-negotiated rebates, and medical-benefit spending, which is administered differently and is being added to the board’s next report. Williamson highlighted other work, including a model on Humira and a pending legislative effort to improve biosimilar competition, plus a proposed state-backed pharmacy savings card that would be no cost to the state and could save users about $240 per prescription based on Connecticut’s experience. No votes were taken during the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• year 2025-26, and $102.2 million one-time in fiscal year 2026-27.
• This proposal requests project funding for two fiscal years in the amount of $2.42 million in fiscal
• This is really meant for the upcoming fiscal year.
• As noted in our analysis, we found this was quite successful.
• So that's the fiscal implication there.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a 1% increase beginning of fiscal year 27.
• That's a 1% increase beginning of fiscal year 27.
• 1% increase beginning of fiscal year 27. 1% increase beginning of fiscal year 27. uh<00:15:23.600
• <00:15:33.120> for 100% of the federal need analysis for 100% of the federal need analysis
• to the FAFSA needs analysis formula. to the FAFSA needs analysis formula. uh<00:32:16.080> those

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In March of this year, an additional fiscal health risk analysis conducted by FCMAT rated the district
• The district has cited the recent FCMAT fiscal health risk analysis as an audit.
• However, this analysis is not an audit.
• Recently, FCMAT completed a fiscal health and risk analysis of our district.
• They're in a fiscal deficit as well as a fiscal cliff.

Summary: The committee heard several audit requests and related testimony. The first major item was an audit of Coachella Valley Unified School District’s contract and fiscal management. The author and supporters described long-standing fiscal mismanagement, large budget shortfalls, layoffs, contracting concerns, and questions about the district’s foundation and use of public funds. District representatives and the Riverside County Office of Education said the district is already under fiscal oversight, has a stabilization plan, and is working to reduce deficits and improve student outcomes. After extensive debate and public comment, the motion to approve the audit was put on call because the committee did not have the required votes from both houses at that moment. The committee then approved an audit of East Bay transit agencies in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Senator Wahab argued the region’s many overlapping transit agencies create fragmentation, duplication, and inefficiency, especially amid a fiscal cliff and possible future tax increases. Transit agencies and labor representatives opposed the audit, saying the agencies already undergo multiple audits, serve distinct local needs, and are implementing regional coordination efforts. After testimony from agency leaders and public commenters, the committee voted to approve the audit. The next item was an audit of California Community Colleges’ unrestricted reserves. Senator Archuleta and supporting faculty representatives said reserves have grown substantially and may be diverting resources from student services, instruction, and workforce programs. They argued there is little oversight when reserves become too high. The Chancellor’s Office and Calbright College were invited to respond, and the audit objectives focused on reserve growth, reasons for high balances, oversight by the Chancellor’s Office, and effects on students and staff. The transcript cuts off during the Chancellor’s Office response, so the final committee action on this item is not shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• This project has been in the works since fiscal year 2020-21.
• Please do some sort of cost-benefit analysis and see...
• There has been no cost analysis and no..."
• In the next fiscal year, in the budget year. Okay.
• There are better, fairer ways to address our fiscal challenges.

Summary: The subcommittee heard an informational update on the state’s generative AI implementation and related oversight. Administration officials said several proof-of-concept projects have moved into minimum viable product phases, including work at CDTFA and Caltrans, and that CDPH has a May Revision request for up to $8 million to scale up its healthcare facilities inspections project. The Legislative Analyst’s Office urged the administration to publish a report on lessons learned from each POC and recommended limiting the new generative AI approval process to a pilot through the first two rounds of projects, with continued monthly meetings and stronger legislative oversight. Members pressed for more transparency and questioned why the CDPH request was not included in January; the administration said the cost estimate was not available then and that only one project is seeking additional resources beyond existing departmental budgets. The committee then reviewed a proposed $400 million loan from the Labor and Workforce Development Fund to the General Fund. Finance and the Labor Agency said the fund has grown because civil penalty revenues have risen sharply, and the loan would be repaid in 2029-30 with provisional language allowing earlier repayment if needed. The LAO agreed the fund could support the loan but warned that recent PAGA reforms may reduce future revenues. Public commenters, including labor and community groups, argued the money should instead support labor-law enforcement and outreach programs such as CWOP, and urged rejection of the loan. Members also heard a Department of Industrial Relations request for $19.1 million for phase two of Public Works Information Technology System Enhancements, which officials said will support labor-law enforcement and apprenticeship registration. The department said the project was delayed because a prior procurement did not result in a contract award and that completion is now expected in October 2026. The committee then took up an EDD Next reappropriation technical adjustment to extend UI fund spending authority through June 30, 2026; the LAO said the request was fine but again raised concerns about oversight of the larger modernization effort, which EDD said now totals more than $660 million and is expected to continue through 2029. Finally, the committee discussed DGS’s request for new parking facilities near the May Lee Building and a trailer bill shifting statewide telework policy language from DGS to CalHR while also expanding NDI eligibility for certain CEA employees. The LAO said the telework trailer bill should likely go through the policy committee process instead of budget, and union and employee witnesses strongly opposed it, arguing it would undermine bargaining rights and could be used to narrow telework. In a separate item on the governor’s return-to-office order, administration officials said departments are being directed to move to a four-day in-office expectation starting July 1, 2025, but they had no statewide cost estimate yet because departments are still assessing vacancies, exemptions, and space needs. Members criticized the lack of analysis and said the state should have clearer numbers before moving forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• Less, and our analysis estimates around 25% to 30%.
• It's as far along as we can get it until we get the additional analysis.
• It's as far along as we can get it until we get the additional analysis.
• I think the most recent analysis would be included in Senate Bill 5085 in the actuarial fiscal note that
• I think it's contained within the actuarial fiscal note for Senate Bill 5085. OK.

Summary: The committee approved the July minutes and then received an informational presentation from the Office of the State Actuary on the financial condition of the state retirement systems. The actuary reported that employer contribution rates are generally declining, helped by strong investment returns and reduced funding for PERS 1 and TERS 1, while funded ratios have continued to improve; on a combined basis the plans were reported at 100% funded in 2024, with open plans above 95% and legacy plans varying by system. The presentation also reviewed projected rates and funded ratios under current assumptions, noted that pension costs are taking a smaller share of the state general fund, and discussed risks from investment volatility, policy changes, and demographic experience. Committee members asked about savings from lower rates, deferred asset smoothing, and how Washington compares with other states. The committee then considered the state actuary’s recommendation on long-term economic assumptions and adopted all four recommendations by roll call votes: inflation at 3.0%, general salary growth at 3.5%, membership growth for Plan 1 funding at 1.0%, and investment rate of return at 7.25%. The actuaries explained that the inflation and salary growth increases were driven largely by higher long-term inflation expectations, while the investment return recommendation matched the current statutory assumption. Members discussed the timing of the Pension Funding Council’s decision, the effect of tariffs and inflation uncertainty, and how assumption changes would affect future contribution rates and budgets, particularly for open plans. Staff then gave an update on the LEOFF 1 study, explaining the difference between being “ahead of schedule” and truly overfunded, and summarizing responses received from DRS, the State Treasurer, and the State Investment Board on the merger and restatement proposals. DRS said both bills could be administered, though the merger bill’s COLA banking provision would be challenging until its new system is ready; the Treasurer urged caution, especially about the restatement bill and the use of one-time funds; and the Investment Board said removing assets from the trust would have some transaction costs but likely small impacts. The committee discussed whether to invite additional agencies and local government groups to testify, and staff said more responses, including from Ice Miller and the State Actuary, were expected for the October meeting. Finally, the committee heard a briefing on PERS 1/TERS 1 COLA policy and related bills from the last session. Staff reviewed the committee’s prior ongoing COLA recommendation, the SCPP-endorsed bills that would have created a one-time 3% COLA followed by an ongoing COLA, the Senate merger bill, and a separate ad hoc COLA bill. Public testimony largely supported Plan 1 COLAs and stable contribution rates, while several speakers urged caution about transferring LEOFF 1 surplus assets or merging legacy plans, and others raised concerns about climate risk and the pension fund’s investments. No further committee action was taken on the COLA item during this portion of the meeting.

Bills: HB2437, HB1815, HB1614, HB1613, HB1612, HB2411, HB2597, HB2583, HB2474, HB1863, HB2590, HB1813, HB1838, HB2138, HB1967, HB1576, HB2139, HB1605, HB2113, HB812, HB1831, HB1707, HB2561, HB1805, HB2469, HB2472, HB2387, HB1658, HB1661, HB1664, HB1859, HB2276, HB2335, HB1656, HB2116, HB2272, HB2273, HB2340, HB2158, HB2339, HB2489, HB2159, HB2171, HB2338, HB2005, HB1952, HB1872, HB1676, HB2384, HB2614, HB20, HB1776, HB1565, HB2310, HB1975, HB1801, HB1668, HB2114, HB1972, HB1546, HB1518, HB1131, HB2208, HB2156, HB2268, HB2622, HB2581, HB2498, HB2443, HB1577, HB2033, HB2031, HB2023, HB1969, HB1973, HB1974, HB2315, HB2343, HB2501, HB2505, HB816, HB1562, HB1591, HB1853, HB1854, HB1871, HB1965, HB1966, HB1537, HB1541, HB276, HB2606, HB2270, HB1920, HB1756, HB1727, HB1718, HB1715, HB1713, HB1711

Keywords: arts education, student engagement, cultural literacy, public schools, funding, State Foundation on Culture and the Arts, SFCA, Performing Arts Grants Program, arts grants, culture and the arts, history and the humanities, King Kamehameha Celebration Commission, Works of Art Special Fund, one percent for art, public art, art in public places, relocatable works of art, DBEDT, Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, DAGS

Transcript Highlights:

• The fiscal impacts were a little lower than expected because of taxpayer activity.
• But we're also still doing that analysis, and the Tax and Rev.
• Department is still doing that analysis.
• In fiscal year 2026, early childhood funding amounted to $918 million.
• Despite this, LFC staff conducted analysis which confirmed previous analysis showing that those enrolled