Transcript Highlights:

• had a general obligation bond in nearly 20 years, nor lease revenue bonds since 2011.
• and lease revenue bonds.
• projects. college bond projects.
• It was about an equal amount of lease revenue bonds and G.O. bonds.
• to lease revenue bonds.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Bills: SJR 18, SCR 5, SCR 13, SCR 25, SB 3, SB 6, SB 10, SB 11, SB 12, SB 13, SB 15, SB 17, SB 18, SB 35, SB 388, SB 412, SB 441, SB 495, SB 666, SB 687, SB 706, SB 740, SB 815, SB 842, SB 917, SB 925, SB 995, SB 1006, SB 1281, SB 1300, SB 1379, SB 1451, SB 1902, SJR 36, SJR 18, SJR 12, SCR 13, SCR 25, SCR 5, SCR 22, SB 565, SB 372, SB 495, SB 842, SB 765, SB 62, SB 19, SB 18, SB 666, SB 707, SB 888, SB 687, SB 706, SB 847, SB 290, SB 11, SB 10, SB 13, SB 412, SB 441, SB 1248, SB 740, SB 14, SB 1006, SB 504, SB 917, SB 925, SB 388, SB 1902, SB 1121, SB 995, SB 857, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 35, SB 6, SB 815, SB 3, SB 1281, SB 1379, SB 1300, SB 1497, SB 1499, SB 1498, SB 1451, SB 1061, SB 15, SB 65, SB 241, SB 304, SB 402, SB 499, SB 621, SB 974, SB 1023, SB 1024, SB 1025, SB 1106, SB 686, SB 112, SB 371, SB 204, SB 400, SB 609, SB 1447, SB 670, SB 502, SB 427, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1555, SB 1362, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 987, SB 1539, SB 893, SB 447, SB 875, SB 406, SB 509, SB 985, SB 965, SB 17, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 12, SB 24, SB 57, SB 1194, SB 1253, SB 1215, SB 1532, SB 1268, SCR 12, SCR 24, SB 1302, SB 856, SB 650, SB 583, SB 673, SB 840, SJR 18, SB 11, SB 441, SB 10, SB 18, SB 412, SB 495, SR 238, SR 264, SR 266, SR 267, SR 268, SR 270, SR 271, SR 272, SR 278, SB 1169, SB 1169

Keywords: capital gains, taxation, constitutional amendment, state revenue, individual investment, SCR 5, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, Texas School for the Deaf, TSD, Robert Rives, gymnasium naming, building naming, honorary resolution, commemorative resolution, deaf education, hard of hearing, Gallaudet University, alumni hall of fame, football coach, school facility naming

Transcript Highlights:

• unanimous consent for Senate Bill 1169 relating to public utility agencies providing authority to issue bonds
• Established over eight decades ago, the 1944 Water Treaty outlines the allocation of water from the Colorado
• About how much water flows through the Rio Grande well according to article 4 in the 1944 treaty, it allocates
• were to release it now, they would not. be able to meet and be in compliance with their five year allocation

Bills: SJR18, SCR5, SCR13, SCR25, SB3, SB6, SB10, SB11, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB17, SB18, SB35, SB388, SB412, SB441, SB495, SB666, SB687, SB706, SB740, SB815, SB842, SB917, SB925, SB995, SB1006, SB1281, SB1300, SB1379, SB1451, SB1902, SJR36, SJR18, SJR12, SCR13, SCR25, SCR5, SCR22, SB565, SB372, SB495, SB842, SB765, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB290, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB412, SB441, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB917, SB925, SB388, SB1902, SB1121, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB35, SB6, SB815, SB3, SB1281, SB1379, SB1300, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB1451, SB1061, SB15, SB65, SB241, SB304, SB402, SB499, SB621, SB974, SB1023, SB1024, SB1025, SB1106, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB400, SB609, SB1447, SB670, SB502, SB427, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1555, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB893, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB509, SB985, SB965, SB17, SB1119, SB1505, SB12, SB24, SB57, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1268, SCR12, SCR24, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB840

Keywords: capital gains, taxation, constitutional amendment, state revenue, individual investment, SCR 5, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, Texas School for the Deaf, TSD, Robert Rives, gymnasium naming, building naming, honorary resolution, commemorative resolution, deaf education, hard of hearing, Gallaudet University, alumni hall of fame, football coach, school facility naming

Transcript Highlights:

• So here, we're looking at capital allocation on the left side of the page, risk allocation on the right
• So here, we're looking at capital allocation on the left side of the page, risk allocations on the right
• The important thing to note is capital allocations and risk allocations are not the same.
• Again, public equities increasing; fixed income, whether it be long-duration bonds, core bonds, TIPS,
• Again, public equities increasing fixed income, whether it be long duration bonds, core bonds, tips,

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement held a hearing focused on the Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System (MOSERS) and its long-term financial condition. MOSERS Executive Director Abby Spieler and investment consultant Tim McKinery outlined the system’s structure, membership, funding policy, and investment approach. They reported that as of the June 30, 2025 valuation, MOSERS had a 55.4% funded ratio, about $17.4 billion in liabilities, and about $9.6 billion in assets. They explained that the FY27 employer contribution rate was certified at 32% under the board’s minimum contribution policy, up from 30.25%, and said the increase is tied to a $46 million new decision item in House Bill 5. The presentation emphasized that MOSERS is a mature plan with more retirees and inactive members than active employees, and that slow or declining payroll growth has made it harder to pay down unfunded liabilities. MOSERS described recent policy changes intended to improve long-term stability, including lowering the investment return assumption over time, updating mortality assumptions, and adopting a minimum employer contribution policy. The board’s 2024 asset-liability study also led to a shift toward more public equity exposure and less fixed income, with the consultant saying asset allocation has been the main driver of relative investment underperformance versus peers in recent years, though recent returns have improved and the portfolio has outperformed its policy index over shorter periods. Committee members questioned why the funded ratio has fallen over time, whether past investment assumptions were too optimistic, and whether the board had been too conservative in its asset allocation. MOSERS representatives responded that the earlier strategy was a board-approved risk-balanced approach and that hindsight makes the results easier to judge, while stressing that current changes are intended to improve long-term outcomes. Members also asked about the impact of inactive members, the automatic refund proposal for small terminated accounts, and the ongoing Catalyst Capital litigation. MOSERS said the proposed legislation would automatically refund small inactive balances and auto-escalate deferred compensation contributions, and reported that litigation-related attorney fees have been about $20 million so far. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after questions and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Bond and special fund reprogramming, $75,000 in bonding authority.
• It means 4% of the money allocated in the bonds going to Sussex County.
• This just authorizes the use of funding that was allocated in prior year bond bills for the Lums Pond
• the allocations for this year.
• The bond committee is adjourned. Thank you.

Summary: The committee met to finalize the FY27 bond bill, beginning with a roll call and a detailed review of updated appropriation amounts. The Comptroller General walked through major changes across agencies, including additions for OMB, the Department of State, DNREC, Agriculture, Education, and Transportation, and explained the funding sources that would cover the total $1.256 billion package. Members then debated several large items, especially the $110 million appropriation for the Diamond State Port Corporation, the $35 million Legislative Hall addition, the $20 million Community Reinvestment Fund, and the $30 million land and building acquisition line. Questions focused on the port project’s costs, expected jobs, return on investment, and whether the state would face future commitments; Secretary of State Charney Patitofunded Chances and other officials testified that the port expansion would create construction and permanent jobs and support long-term economic growth, while some members remained skeptical and objected to the process and spending priorities. The committee also discussed school construction funding, with officials explaining that additional money would forward-fund projects already in the pipeline and help districts that had been turned down for certificates of necessity. Other items reviewed included funding for park improvements, marina acquisition, the Plummer Center demolition and transfer, the Pyle Center sewer project, the Site Readiness Fund, affordable housing, the Arts Endowment Fund, an unclaimed property task force, and various transportation and community transportation projects. Several members raised concerns about county distribution, minority-party involvement in negotiations, and the scale of certain appropriations, but the majority defended the package as statewide investment and economic development. The committee then voted on the Section 1 addendum and a series of new and replacement epilogue sections, including provisions for the port project, Legislative Hall minor capital improvements, land acquisition, affordable housing, the Community Reinvestment Fund, downtown development districts, the Rite Aid demolition, the Site Readiness Fund, school construction formula review, and enhanced school capital funding. Most motions carried, with a few recorded no votes or abstentions on the main addendum. The meeting concluded with a motion authorizing technical corrections by the Comptroller General’s office, followed by closing remarks thanking staff and members for their work and noting that this was likely the final bond committee meeting for some participants before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also allocate an additional cent and a half for every dollar of local tax revenue to fund bonds, so
• We also allocate an additional cent and a half for every dollar of local tax revenue to fund bonds, so
• We also allocate an additional cent and a half for every dollar of local tax revenue to fund bonds, so
• We also allocate an additional cent and a half for every dollar of local tax revenue to fund bonds, so
• <00:33:04.840> potential committing our full bonding potential committing our full bonding

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:05 HB 537 Discussion 00:00:40 HB 537 Vote 00:02:45 HJR 34 Discussion 00:03:30 HJR 34 Vote 00:07:45 HJR 30 Discussion 00:08:30 HJR 30 Vote 00:10:25 HJR 32 Discussion 00:11:00 HJR 32 Vote 00:41:00, 958, all

Summary: The committee took up several measures related to appropriations and school facilities. House Bill 537 was explained as a technical fix to Kentucky’s opioid abatement settlement framework so the state can accept funds from national bankruptcy settlements under the allocation structure now used by the courts; the bill was supported by the Attorney General’s office and local government groups and received a favorable recommendation. House Joint Resolution 34 authorized release of previously appropriated KCTCS funds for three projects, and members discussed whether KCTCS facilities could be used more broadly for community needs such as public health, workforce, and other services. KCTCS officials said they were open to that idea, and the resolution also received a favorable recommendation. House Joint Resolution 30, concerning the Waters program and release of funds for projects that had remained in design, was adopted by committee substitute and passed favorably. The committee then heard extensive testimony on House Joint Resolution 32, which concerns school facility gap funding for districts with low bonding capacity. The chair and sponsor explained that the General Assembly had previously asked the auditor and Blue & Co. to analyze district data because of disputes over project costs and bonding capacity. Superintendents from Marion County, Augusta Independent, Williamstown, and Walton Verona described their projects and financial constraints. Marion County and Augusta argued that full gap funding is necessary for new school or multipurpose facility projects that cannot be phased in; Augusta emphasized its old building stock, high poverty rate, and the need for a gymnasium/multipurpose space used for school and community functions. Williamstown described a STEM center and field expansion, saying the project would be delayed for years without full funding. Walton Verona described rapid growth, overcrowding, and an intermediate school project that had risen sharply in cost from the original estimate. Members asked questions about the accuracy of cost estimates and the scope of the projects, including why some estimates differed from the auditor’s figures and whether the funding requests covered only parts of larger phased plans. The testimony generally supported full funding for the listed districts, with the districts arguing that the projects are necessary for safe, modern learning environments and that local tax effort has already been substantial. Each of the measures considered during the meeting was reported out favorably, with the chair voting no on the resolutions and bills before the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• The administration's climate bond expenditure plan allocates $100 million for the urban greening program
• The administration's climate bond expenditure plan allocates a hundred million for the urban greening
• The bond allocates $200 million for projects that create, protect, and expand outdoor recreation opportunities
• The bond allocates 200 million for projects that create, protect, and expand outdoor recreation opportunities
• While the funding set aside for State Parks is allocated for other purposes, there are other bond allocations

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations on the administration’s Proposition 4 spending plans for extreme heat mitigation and outdoor access, then took up SB 54 implementation, SB 707 textile producer responsibility, and recovery needs related to the Los Angeles fires at state parks. For the extreme heat chapter, agencies described funding for the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program, urban greening, urban forestry, fairground upgrades, and technical assistance for community-based climate programs. Witnesses emphasized that these are existing programs with strong demand, that technical assistance is important for reaching disadvantaged and tribal communities, and that the proposed funding would expand outreach and implementation capacity. Members asked for more detail on where funds have gone geographically, examples of successful projects, tree-planting totals, and how fairgrounds could better support fire staging and emergency preparedness. The LAO said the timing of the administration’s proposed funding generally made sense because the programs are already established, and no votes were taken. For outdoor access, State Parks, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources described funding for new parks in underserved communities, deferred maintenance, state lands access, and several new or pending programs. State Parks said the park development program would fund roughly 48 projects and that deferred maintenance funding would address high-priority health, safety, and access needs. Fish and Wildlife said its lands program would improve visitor amenities and access on properties that often lack basic facilities. The Natural Resources Agency also outlined three newer outdoor-access proposals: expanding recreation in disadvantaged communities, enhancing natural resource values and trail access, and a nature/climate/education facilities grant program. The LAO distinguished between existing programs, which are ready to move forward, and the newer proposals, where the Legislature may want more input before funds are allocated. Members also raised concerns about park police vacancies, the need to track outcomes for accessibility investments, and whether Prop. 4 could help with wildfire-related recovery at state parks. CalRecycle then presented on SB 54, the plastics and packaging producer responsibility law, and members pressed hard on the delay in regulations. CalRecycle said it has held workshops, formed an advisory committee, selected the producer responsibility organization, and completed required baseline and covered-material reports, but needs more time to address complex comments and novel features such as source reduction and eco-modulated fees. Members expressed frustration that a statutory deadline was missed and asked for a concrete timeline; CalRecycle said it expects regulations in place by 2026, ahead of the PRO’s January 1, 2027 plan deadline. Finance said the Beverage Container Recycling Fund is currently healthy enough to support short-term loans for implementation. The committee also reviewed SB 707, the textile EPR law, which would create the nation’s first textile producer responsibility program; staff said the proposal would add positions and loan authority, and members noted the statutory deadlines for PRO approval, needs assessment, and later regulations. The hearing ended with discussion of the January Los Angeles fires’ damage to Topanga State Park and Will Rogers State Historic Park, where State Parks described extensive losses, emergency response work, and ongoing damage assessment. Members asked about FEMA eligibility, state funding sources, and community engagement in rebuilding, and the department said it is still assessing costs and will work with the public on reimagining the parks.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're sort of in one again this year where there's no monies allocated other than those that were allocated
• were allocated to pay off those that were allocated to pay off debt. debt. debt.
• The bond you're speaking about, that bond, correct?
• >> bond tail the bond not not project tail.
• >> bond tail the bond not not project tail. >> Yeah.<01:20:03.760> Yeah.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee began its first meeting on retained education funding bills, focusing on HB 366, which concerns school building aid for eligible projects, and HB 295, which would make school building aid program funds non-lapsing. The chair framed the discussion around broader questions about how school building aid should work, noting the state’s limited available funding, the existing debt service obligations, and whether the current formula should continue or be changed. He also raised concerns about the state’s overall revenue constraints and the need to consider renovation, new construction, and possibly leasing within any future program. Members and the Department of Education representative discussed whether school building aid is a state or local responsibility, the current backlog of projects, and the condition of school facilities statewide. Tim Carney of the Bureau of School Facilities described his background and answered technical questions about current programs. Representative Luno argued that under the ConVal decision the state has responsibility for school buildings, including construction and renovation, and that the program also serves an equity function by helping districts with less property-tax capacity. Representative Papich urged the committee to focus on policy structure and fairness rather than just available dollars, saying the current system creates winners and losers and suggesting a simpler per-capita or similar allocation model, while acknowledging a possible transition for projects already in the pipeline. The discussion also covered CTE facilities and leasing. Carney explained that charter schools, and possibly CTE centers, can receive limited leasing aid, and that CTE capital requests are funded through a state capital process, while federal Carl Perkins funds cannot be used for construction. He and others described a separate rotational funding approach for CTE centers, but several members said that model can leave programs waiting too long and may not match changing workforce needs. The chair and others noted that a report from a related study group on CTE policy and funding was still pending, and that its absence could affect legislation for FY28. No votes were taken and no bill was acted on in the portion of the meeting provided; the discussion ended with interest in modeling alternatives, reviewing the waiting list, and examining the tradeoffs of reducing upfront state aid versus funding more projects overall.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're sort of in one again this year where there's no monies allocated other than those that were allocated
• were allocated to pay off those that were allocated to pay off debt. debt. debt.
• On the bond tail.
• >> bond tail the bond not not project tail.
• >> bond tail the bond not not project tail. >> Yeah.<01:20:03.760> Yeah.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened its first meeting on retained education funding bills, focusing on HB 366, which concerns school building aid for eligible projects, and HB 295, which would make school building aid program funds non-lapsing. The chair framed the discussion broadly around whether school building aid should remain a state program, how to address limited revenues, and whether the current system should continue to prioritize debt service and the existing formula or move toward a different model such as per-pupil allocations, a dedicated fund, or a split between new construction and renovation. He also raised questions about whether leasing should be included and how to manage any new fund under current law and the school building authority structure. Representatives and department staff discussed the current backlog of applications, the age and condition of school facilities, and the possibility that large projects can consume available funding for a year while other districts go unsupported. Tim Carney of the Bureau of School Facilities introduced himself and provided technical context on the program and current debt levels. Representative Luneau argued that under the ConVal decision, the state’s responsibility includes school buildings, construction, and renovation, and that the program also serves an equity function by helping districts with less property wealth. He noted that construction and renovation have long been recognized categories and asked about leasing, which staff said is already supported in statute for charter schools and possibly CTE, with a cap of 30% of annual lease cost or $50,000. The discussion also covered CTE facilities: staff explained that capital funding for CTE centers is state-funded, that federal Carl Perkins funds cannot be used for construction, and that the current rotational capital model means only a few centers are funded each year, which may not match changing program needs. A committee studying CTE capital needs was referenced, along with concerns that the report from that work had not yet been received. Representative Papich urged the subcommittee to focus on policy, principles, and structure rather than just numbers, saying the current system produces a few winners and many districts that never receive aid. He favored a simpler, more equitable per-capita or formula-based approach, while acknowledging the need for a transition plan for projects already in the pipeline. The chair later cautioned against mixing maintenance and operations with construction and renovation, noting that operation and maintenance are already part of the adequacy formula and should not be confused with capital funding. No votes were taken during the meeting; the discussion was exploratory, with members and staff laying out competing approaches and identifying issues for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we reserve an allocation of 375,000 for statewide bond costs.
• An allocation of 375,000 for statewide bond costs will satisfy the requirement for the 50 million for
• Across all Proposition 4 bond allocations, a portion of statewide bond costs were reserved.
• It's not allocated, I'm sorry, and gentlemen, it's not allocated.
• CALSOS supports the allocation of about $50 million from the climate bond to DSGS.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So here we're looking at capital allocation on the left side of the page, risk allocations on the right
• The important thing to note is capital allocations and risk allocations are not the same.
• So as rates rise, bond prices fall.
• Again, public equities are increasing; fixed income, whether it be long-duration bonds, core bonds, TIPS
• Yeah, so from an investment perspective, asset allocation decisions, so the board-approved asset allocation

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement held a hearing focused on the Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System (MOSERS) and its long-term financial condition. MOSERS staff and its investment consultant reviewed the system’s structure, membership, funding policy, and investment approach. They reported a June 30, 2025 funded ratio of 55.4%, with about $17.4 billion in liabilities and $9.6 billion in assets, and explained that the board certified a 32% employer contribution rate under its minimum contribution policy, up from 30.25%, which will increase state appropriations. They also described the system as mature, with more retirees and inactive members than active employees, and said declining payroll growth has made it harder to improve funding. The presentation emphasized that recent board actions were intended to strengthen the plan over the long term, even though they increased near-term costs. Those changes included lowering the assumed investment return over time to 6.95%, updating mortality assumptions, moving from an open to a closed amortization schedule, and adopting a minimum employer contribution policy. The investment consultant said MOSERS historically used a more risk-balanced asset allocation than many peers, which helped explain weaker relative returns during a long period when public equities outperformed; the board has since shifted toward a more equity-oriented allocation. He said recent performance has improved, with the portfolio outperforming its policy index and ranking better against peers in the short term, though longer-term peer performance remains a concern. Committee members questioned why the funded ratio had declined over roughly 20 years and whether past investment and actuarial assumptions were too optimistic or too conservative. MOSERS officials responded that the current board is trying to correct earlier decisions and that the present strategy is more in line with industry practice. Members also discussed a proposed MOSERS bill package that would automatically refund small balances to terminated non-vested members and increase deferred compensation auto-escalation, with officials saying the refund provision would improve efficiency and return small balances sooner. The committee also briefly discussed ongoing litigation involving Catalyst Capital; MOSERS said attorney fees have been about $20 million so far, the case remains on appeal, and the damages amount is sealed. No formal votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after questions and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this we have several projects on this allocation that have been completed.
• We appreciate the bonding bill that passed.
• Chair, how is this part of the argument on the bonding bill?
• I think the big bonding bill, Mr.
• And there are funding sources, fee sources, for retiring the debt on the bonds.

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The committee heard a District 5 New Mexico Department of Transportation presentation from Rhonda Lopez, who reviewed the district’s FY26 budget, staffing vacancies, and the status of special appropriations from 2020 through 2025. She described numerous completed and ongoing projects across the district, including roadway overlays, bridge work, intersection improvements, ADA upgrades, and maintenance projects, and also summarized STIP, TPF, LGRF, and equipment needs. Members asked about a guardrail issue near U.S. 64 in Hogback, the 5% local match for TPF projects, and the status of the New Mexico 371/U.S. 36 intersection funding agreement with the Navajo Nation; DOT said the match is secured or waived where applicable and that the Navajo agreement is nearly finalized. The committee then heard House Bill 270, which would amend the Public Works Apprentice Training Act to require contributions to apprenticeship and training programs for certain public works contracts, including highway-related work, while creating an exception where no approved apprenticeship program exists for a trade classification. The sponsor said the bill was intended to strengthen workforce development and support apprenticeship training. Contractors and asphalt industry representatives opposed the bill, arguing it would raise road project costs and duplicate existing training contributions. A motion to table failed on a tie, and a later motion to pass also failed on a tie, leaving the bill in committee. Next, the committee heard House Bill 322, which would create a transportation trust fund and transportation program fund, dedicate additional revenue sources including a portion of electricity GRT and motor vehicle excise tax, and begin annual distributions for federal matching funds in 2029. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would help address a multi-billion-dollar road funding gap, improve maintenance, and provide a stable source for matching federal dollars. Some members raised concerns about the electricity tax component, its effect on utility bills, and overlap with recently enacted transportation financing measures; others supported the concept but questioned timing and funding priorities. A motion on the bill resulted in a tie and failed, leaving the bill in committee. The meeting concluded with a District 4 NMDOT legislative presentation. The district outlined its geography, budget, staffing vacancy rate, completed special appropriations, active construction and maintenance projects, wildfire-related recovery work, local government funding allocations, and equipment replacement needs. Members asked about school district uses of local funding and the impact of aging equipment and weather on maintenance costs. The presentation ended without any formal action on District 4 items, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• had a general obligation bond in nearly 20 years, nor lease revenue bonds since 2000.
• and lease revenue bonds.
• bond payments that we handle.
• It was about an equal amount of lease revenue bonds and GEO bonds.
• to lease revenue bonds.

Summary: The committee’s first major discussion focused on higher education facilities across UC, CSU, and the community colleges, with Chair Alvarez framing the issue as a final budget hearing before the May Revise. The LAO presented findings that campuses have grown substantially in buildings and square footage, while classroom and lab utilization remains below legislative standards and deferred maintenance backlogs continue to rise. The LAO also emphasized that the state and segments lack comprehensive data on capital renewal spending and recommended better reporting, clearer funding targets, and long-term planning for renewal and maintenance. UC, CSU, and community college representatives each described large five-year capital plans, aging facilities, seismic and deferred maintenance needs, and the role of student housing, while noting that construction costs are rising faster than inflation. Members questioned the segments about debt service, utilization rates, and how projects are prioritized. UC said its debt service tied to state support is about $665 million annually and described a $30 billion five-year capital financial plan, including housing, medical centers, and building renewal. CSU said it has about $31 billion in five-year needs and more than $8 billion in deferred maintenance, with funding coming from a mix of state-related and one-time sources since the state shifted capital responsibility to CSU. Community colleges said their unmet facilities needs total about $33.5 billion and explained their use of a scoring matrix and FUSION system to rank projects. The chair and members pressed all three systems to better distinguish between projects that are truly shovel-ready and those that are long-term needs, and discussed whether facilities condition data, total cost of ownership, and more standardized metrics should guide future bond proposals. The committee then turned to Proposition 2 and the Governor’s proposed community college capital outlay projects. The Department of Finance said Prop. 2 provides $1.5 billion for community colleges and that the Governor’s budget proposes 29 projects, with two continuing Prop. 51 projects also included. The LAO supported the overall use of the funds but raised concerns about the current 65/35 split between modernization and growth, the unusually large share of gymnasium projects, and some scoring metrics that favor larger campuses and certain regions. Community college officials said the scoring system was developed through participatory governance and would take one to two years to revise, but they supported the funding and agreed to follow up on questions about project categories and the rationale for the weighting. Members also suggested giving more weight to modernization, regional access, and intersegmental or collaborative projects. A final item addressed the CalKids program. The Department of Finance proposed $56,000 ongoing General Fund for three positions, while the LAO recommended approving two positions but rejecting a manager position until the current $7.5 million marketing campaign is evaluated. ScholarShare’s executive director said CalKids has enrolled more than 5 million children, with nearly 600,000 claims and over $45 million distributed, and argued that additional staff and outreach are needed to reach a goal of 1 million claimed scholarships by the end of 2025 and to implement AB 2808. Members asked about marketing effectiveness, data sharing, and eligibility rules, and the program said it is expanding partnerships with Cradle to Career and CSAC. No final vote was taken in the hearing, and the chair indicated the facilities item would be held open.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the executive director for the Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Debt Limit Allocation Committee
• Set by, we get a per capita multiplier of taxes and bonds that we have the authority to allocate to bond
• In the 2025 budget, CalHFA received another allocation for Dream For All, Phase 3: $300 million allocated
• We also offer additional financing outside of the state's annual bond cap through our innovative bond
• One, the housing bond. I can't emphasize enough the importance of the housing bond right now.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• $1,345,889.97 from bond funds from the 2024-26 asset preservation pool.
• being allocated. being allocated.
• reallocation from the county allocation reallocation from the county allocation pool.<00:30:49.279
• Bonds, Meadows at McNeely Lake Series 2025, for a bond amount not to exceed $40.5 million.
• Uh, we refunded $42.955 million of the TAK 2015 Series A bonds.

Keywords: 00:05 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:34 Approval of Minutes 00:56 Information Items 05:40 Project Rpt from Postsecondary Institutions 14:00 Project Rpt from Finance and Administration Cabinet 20:40 Lease Rpt from Finance and Administration Cabinet 24:53 Rpt from OFM – Ky Infrastructure Authority 40:38 Office of Financial Management 47:39 Remaining 2025 Meeting Dates 48:05 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The meeting began with routine business, including a quorum call, approval of the April minutes, and several informational reports. Those information items covered upcoming general obligation debt for Bullitt, Jefferson, and Warren counties; Kentucky Communications Network Authority updates tied to House Bill 6; Eastern Kentucky University asset preservation reallocations under House Bill 1; and School Facilities Construction Commission debt activity, including 20 prior debt issues totaling about $386 million with roughly 85% locally supported debt service and 15% SFCC participation. Members then discussed concerns about a Kentucky Communications Network Authority project, focusing on a reported discrepancy between an appropriation of $12.927 million and an apparent payment of about $8.532 million on a project with a cost estimate of $12.449 million. Several members asked for more detailed written information before the next Capital Projects meeting, noting that a lawsuit is pending and that they wanted to better understand the basis for the request and the spending to date. The committee also heard and unanimously approved a donor-funded Northern Kentucky University project to renovate tennis courts, with possible pickleball additions, after questions about why approval was needed, the project’s estimated $3 million cost, and its expected minimal ongoing operating costs. The committee next received Kentucky State University pool allocation reports for three projects: a $2 million McCullen Hall renovation, a $1.75 million walkway and miscellaneous repairs project, and a $2 million academic services building roof-and-window project. A member asked specifically about curb cuts and accessibility in the walkway project, and Kentucky State said existing curb cuts would be repaired and additional accessibility issues would be reviewed by engineers. The lease report from the Finance and Administration Cabinet included one lease modification requiring approval for the Attorney General’s office in Franklin County and one no-action modification for the Board of Cosmetology; the Attorney General lease was approved by roll call vote. Finally, the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority presented five loans and 37 grants, with action taken on the loan and grant items. The loans included a Hodgenville wastewater treatment plant increase, a Grant County sewer district treatment plant loan, a Mount Sterling dam rehabilitation loan, and two Morganfield drinking water loans for granular activated carbon treatment, one with full principal forgiveness. Members asked about the Morganfield project’s purpose and were told it was a remediation effort for a water-quality concern, and they also raised questions about engineering fees, which KIA said are compared against a U.S. Rural Development fee schedule that is industry accepted. The committee also reviewed cleaner water program grant reallocations from county allocation pools.

Transcript Highlights:

• The climate bond allocates $300 million for climate-smart agriculture over the lifetime of the bond.
• The climate bond allocates. You are? Courtney Mason. Yield's Department of... Good morning, Chair.
• The climate bond allocates... You are? Courtney Masson, with the Department of Finance. Thank you.
• The climate bond allocates $450 million for the extreme heat mitigation chapter over the lifetime of
• the bond.

Summary: The meeting began with a lengthy opening discussion with Secretary Karen Ross of the Department of Food and Agriculture, who reviewed the department’s proposed budget, emphasized California agriculture’s record output, and highlighted major priorities including climate-smart agriculture, groundwater management, local food systems, farm-to-school, food hubs, invasive pest prevention, bird flu response, and food safety. She also warned about federal budget cuts, especially at USDA and FDA, and discussed market access challenges abroad, rising input costs, labor shortages, and the need for automation and workforce training. Members raised questions about the future of Farm to School, the California Nutrition Incentive Program/Market Match, local food procurement, and how to better connect farmers to schools, food banks, and food hubs; Ross said the department had strong evidence the program benefits small farms and Title I schools and noted continued interest in building out local food infrastructure. The committee then took up item one on eliminating vacant positions at the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Parks and Recreation, and Food and Agriculture. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that the Governor proposed eliminating 6,000 vacant positions statewide, with the Joint Legislative Budget Committee previously rejecting 650 of them, including 174 in these three departments. LAO and Finance said the vacancies represented a source of budget flexibility, but warned that eliminating them could create program impacts; LAO recommended retaining the special-funded positions at Fish and Wildlife and Food and Agriculture, while weighing the General Fund positions against other priorities. Finance argued the reductions were part of a broader budget-resiliency exercise and that departments could reclassify or shift vacancies to higher priorities. Members focused heavily on the practical impacts of the cuts. Assemblymember Petrie-Norris argued that Fish and Wildlife staffing shortages were already slowing permits needed for housing, clean energy, water, and transportation projects, and questioned the value of saving relatively small amounts of money. Fish and Wildlife officials said the department had prioritized mission-critical work and could still meet permitting obligations, but acknowledged limited-term staffing constraints. State Parks said the proposed ranger and maintenance cuts would not have immediate effects but could slow maintenance and eventually worsen deferred maintenance. Food and Agriculture said some of the eliminated positions supported early pest detection and eradication, but that the department believed it could still meet its mandate and reclassify positions if needed. The chair and several members signaled concern about the Fish and Wildlife and Parks cuts, while also noting the broader need for budget reductions. The committee then moved to item six, hearing an overview from the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. Staff described the office’s role in CEQA implementation and said the budget requests were baseline funding to maintain existing functions, including IT services and administrative/legislative support, rather than new programs. The chair asked the presenters to move quickly through background material so the committee could get to questions, and the item began with no votes taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• It strikes general fund allocation.
• Subdivision three is the bonding authority authorizing the city to issue bonds to finance the projects
• Subdivision three is the bonding authority authorizing the city to issue bonds to finance the projects
• Subdivision three is the bonding authority authorizing the city to issue bonds to finance the projects
• existing border cities allocation. existing border cities allocation.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of $375,000 for statewide bond costs.
• fiscal year 2032-33 and reserved an allocation of $3.5 million for statewide bond costs.
• And similarly, across all Proposition 4 bond allocations, a portion of statewide bond costs were reserved
• And so council supports allocation of about $50 million from the climate bond to DSGS.
• I'm here to support the Governor's proposed allocation, a Prop. 4 fund allocation for ports and offshore

Summary: The hearing was an informational budget session on energy agency proposals, with no votes taken. Early discussion focused on Proposition 4 climate bond implementation, including funding for demand-side grid support, offshore wind development, and transmission financing. The Department of Finance said the budget includes allocations for demand-side grid support and offshore wind, but not yet for the $325 million transmission financing piece pending a required study. The Legislative Analyst’s Office urged the Legislature to consider whether to wait on offshore wind funding, whether to keep shifting funds into demand-side grid support, and how to direct future transmission financing. Members also raised concerns about local technical assistance for offshore wind, Salton Sea priorities, and the need for more information before final decisions. The California Energy Commission and CPUC then reviewed the broader energy package. The CEC highlighted the demand-side grid support program’s growth, distributed energy backup assets, long-duration storage, hydrogen grants, and the SIRP clean energy reliability program. CPUC testimony emphasized affordability, wildfire mitigation costs, rooftop solar cost shifts, and efforts to reduce rates while maintaining reliability and clean energy goals. Members questioned CPUC staffing, delays in proceedings, coordination with the CEC and CAISO, and the impact of rate increases on customers. The agencies also discussed the AB 3264 transmission financing study, with CPUC saying work on the study had already begun and was on track for the July 1 deadline. Several trailer bill and implementation items were also discussed. The committee reviewed a proposal to extend the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program surcharge, with members split over whether it should be handled in budget trailer bill language or policy legislation; the administration said the surcharge supports a critical program serving about three-quarters of a million Californians. The committee also heard a CPUC data-sharing proposal to allow nondisclosure agreements for transmission and reliability data, which members generally supported as a technical fix. DWR explained a proposal to clarify language for the Electricity Supply Strategic Reliability Reserve so it can potentially sell three gas-fired units it owns, and the CEC presented a federal transmission grant proposal tied to grid-enhancing technologies and ratepayer cost recovery. Finally, the committee discussed California Lifeline and possible broadband pilot reforms in light of uncertainty around federal Universal Service Fund support, with CPUC saying it is exploring a statewide standalone broadband option for eligible customers.

Transcript Highlights:

• Prior to the bond, this program, or BHCIP, was originally allocated $2.2 billion.
• So the bond, Proposition 1 authorized a $6.4 billion bond.
• So prior to the bond, this program or BCHIP was originally allocated $2.2 billion.
• We laid out a number of assessments to help inform the Legislature as we move forward with the bond allocations
• , the BHCIP, and the bond.

Summary: The hearing opened with remarks from the chair and members about recent federal cuts to public health, mental health, family planning, and Title X funding, with strong concern about the impact on California programs and providers. The committee then turned to the Department of State Hospitals, which presented its 2025-26 budget proposal of $3.4 billion, including new positions, capital improvements, and funding tied to increased patient costs and incompetent-to-stand-trial services. DSH reported major progress in reducing the IST waitlist and wait times, said it had met the court’s 28-day treatment benchmark for those without extenuating circumstances, and described workforce recruitment and retention efforts such as residency programs, fellowships, outreach, and hiring streamlining. Members asked about future IST referral trends, SB 1323’s effect on diversion and community treatment, and workforce lessons in high-cost regions; public comment urged reconsideration of county IST growth cap methodology in light of new criminal justice initiatives. The committee next received an informational overview of Proposition 1 and its changes to behavioral health funding and governance. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that Prop. 1 restructured county MHSA funding buckets, expanded the Commission for Behavioral Health, shifted prevention and early intervention responsibilities, and authorized a $6.4 billion bond, including $4.4 billion for behavioral health facilities through BHCIP. DHCS said it had released guidance for county integrated plans and was receiving extensive public comment. Members focused on BHCIP application requirements, especially letters of support and tribal projects, and raised concerns about whether DHCS’s implementation matched statutory intent. DHCS said it had authority to set application requirements and that tribal entities were treated differently because of sovereignty and funding structure. DHCS then updated the committee on BHCIP, the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program, and related bond implementation. The department said BHCIP had awarded about $1.7 billion across five rounds, with more than 130 projects and 223 distinct facilities funded, and that it was preparing to award the new bond funds after receiving nearly $8 billion in applications. The LAO’s assessment found that more than half of awards served at least 80% Medi-Cal enrollees, but also raised concerns that the regional allocation model could reinforce inequities, that the program had not sufficiently addressed the highest-need regions such as the southern San Joaquin Valley, and that smaller counties and less launch-ready applicants faced barriers. For bridge housing, DHCS said more than $1.1 billion had been awarded, serving over 5,000 people and supporting more than 2,000 operational beds, but the Governor’s budget proposes to eliminate Round 4 funding as the administration weighs other statewide investments and Proposition 1 implementation workload. Public commenters and members urged more accountability, better regional equity, stronger labor and community involvement, and caution about funding for for-profit psychiatric facilities. Finally, the committee heard on the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative. CalHHS and DHCS described CYBHI as a broad prevention- and equity-focused effort with more than 1,300 organizations funded, over $2.1 billion awarded, and multiple work streams spanning schools, community programs, workforce, and digital supports. DHCS highlighted school-based services, the fee schedule rollout, and digital platforms BrightLife Kids and Soluna, which it said are reaching users statewide and providing low-barrier access to coaching and support. Members and public commenters raised concerns about delays in school fee schedule implementation, the large share of funding going to digital tools, the need for more in-person services, and whether the initiative is sufficiently tracking outcomes and equity impacts. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think, from a personal point of view, using deferred allocations and allocating them to operational
• But the University of California has bond funds within our state General Fund allocation, which is very
• There is now $665 million out of that $4.6 billion allocation to UC that goes only to bond debt.
• We take out what's called lease revenue bonds, which are bonds that are repaid with the student rental
• And then when it comes time for us to issue a bond, we use our state General Fund allocation and send

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