Transcript Highlights:

• Um, really it's just a variance analysis comparing budget figures to actual fiscal impacts.
• A third option would be an annual report on previously enacted bills that would include an impact analysis
• However, local impact notes would not be provided during session, and the depth of analysis could vary
• <00:37:21.760> analysis<00:37:22.240> of<00:37:22.400> selected include an impact
• analysis of selected include an impact analysis of selected bills,<00:37:23.280> comments<00:

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Caucus Public Commission met with a quorum present, approved the September 3, 2025 minutes, and then heard a presentation from Legislative Budget Office Director Christian Larson on proposed updates to the fiscal note uniform standards and procedures. The main changes clarified that agencies must still complete a fiscal note when a bill or section cannot be implemented because of federal law, with the note explaining the implementation issue and costing only the portions that can be implemented. A second change said technical comments about possible future litigation may be included in the narrative but not in the cost tables. Members discussed how these rules would apply when only part of a bill is unimplementable versus when an entire bill is, and whether requiring a note in those cases is the best use of agency time. The commission also approved a new procedure on funding-source assumptions for expanded programs, including assuming the current funding source unless the bill says otherwise and defaulting to the general fund if no source is identified. The updated standards and procedures were adopted by a 7-0 roll call vote, with Senator Wickland excused. The commission then received a second presentation from Director Larson on a possible analysis of the accuracy of fiscal estimates and budget items after enactment. He described this as a variance analysis comparing fiscal note estimates to actual fiscal impacts, intended to improve future estimates, inform the legislature, and increase accountability. He summarized practices in other states, noting that most variance reviews are ad hoc, while Utah and Tennessee have more formalized legislative reports; he also referenced an LBO pilot review done in 2022 based largely on Tennessee’s model. The presentation outlined possible report formats, including a single annual report, standalone briefs, or topic-specific reviews, and raised implementation questions such as who would select items for review, whether the analysis should be limited to fiscal notes, what statutory authority or data access would be needed, and what resources would be required from both agencies and the LBO. Members did not take action on the second presentation. Representative Anderson and Vice Chair Pratt commented that the proposal is complicated but potentially useful for improving future fiscal notes and transparency, and the chair indicated the discussion was for future consideration rather than an immediate decision.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is not. the biggest impact we've had this session.
• Certainly. of this bill would not impact to that level.
• It has minimal impact—a very tiny percent of a $210 billion fund—and has no impact on the actuarial soundness
• we can minimize the negative impacts.
• House Bill 854 addresses the impact on our communities.

Bills: HB46, HJR35, HJR47, HJR182, HB 113, HB983, HB4847, HB1449, HB3833, HB5151, HB265, HB1845, HB782, HB 108, HB1960, HB158, HB1954, HB1955, HB2512, HB605, HB2581, HB2803, HB627, HB2667, HB1738, HB636, HB3679, HB2638, HB2655, HB871, HB2438, HB 1107, HB1765, HB1822, HB2153, HB4099, HB3732, HB3171, HB3178, HB3182, HB3749, HB2814, HB3977, HB4204, HB4207, HB4449, HB1820, HB1876, HB1939, HB1347, HB2593, HB2136, HB2132, HB2658, HB2413, HB2757, HB2080, HB3154, HB3063, HB3009, HB3448, HB3006, HB2844, HB3241, HB3680, HB3169, HB2078, HB2507, HB4559, HB3946, HB3460, HB3405, HB475, HB3463, HB3441, HB3520, HB2060, HB4731, HB4991, HB1991, HB5596, HB2014, HB2142, HB2673, HB2731, HB2417, HB2399, HB2301, HB3335, HB3234, HB3320, HB5573, HB4848, HB4748, HB4769, HB4795, HB2086, HB2234, HB2203, HB4916, HB5624, HB4505, HB139, HB5093, HB5302, HB5402, HB5606, HB2333, HB4630, HB4701, HB2583, HB2983, HB4924, HB3339, HB3793, HB3631, HB4882, HB5509, HB5499, HB5430, HB5561, HB5611, HB5043, HB5064, HB3733, HB3781, HB3219, HB32, HB4515, HB5348, HR559, HB4506, HB1646, HB3185, HB3388, HB2761, HB3233, HB1534, HB5129, HB5394, HB3619, HB2867, HB3672, HB2434, HB4903, HB3687, HB3675, HB4609, HB4582, HB3866, HB4534, HB2446, HB3984, HB700, HB4088, HB229, SB2419, SB842, SB1257, SB2550, SB996, HB 1186, HB4327, HB3221, HB2588, SB552, HB4870, HB2494, HB3940, HB4838, HB3177, HB1441, SB1841, HB3962, HB2225, HJR112, HB897, HB2695, HB4670, HB3602, HB3317, HB3717, HB3138, HB3704, HB1403, HJR218, HB4921, SJR37, HJR138, HJR144, HB3892, HB4, HB46, HJR35, HJR47, HJR182, HB4234, HB722, HB4136, HB4105, HB4413, HB170, HB551, HB2858, HB3053, HB3142, HB3180, HB3722, HB2200, HB1794, HB1784, HB1581, HB2530, HB4308, HB1896, HB2974, HB3359, HB4580, HB2458, HB2215, HB3332, HB2278, HB3015, HB3151, HB1368, HB40, HB 101, HB 112, HB146, HB168, HB214, HB413, HB1523, HB493, HB521, HB594, HB557, HB305, HB549, HB854, HB 1057, HB 1052, HB842, HB3174, HB3311, HB2486, HB3196, HB824, HB 1039, HB2529, HB2713, HB4936, HB4995, HB4830, HB4864, HB5219, HB5263, HB5154, HB2674, HB5525, HB5623, HB2545, HB2587, HB2625, HB5520, HB5436, HB4926, HB1573, HB5165, HB4811, HB5081, HB4755, HB3179, HB4310, HB4611, HB2159, HB4626, HB3637, HB3153, HB3066, HB2786, HB2966, HB638, HB640, HB876, HB497, HB5539, HB4809, HB5308, HB4687, HB4070, HB4421, HB4412, HB3284, HB3369, HB3420, HB3449, HB4098, HB4281, HB4120, HB4504, HB4370, HB 1106, HB2370, HB2404, HB3863, HB2407, HB2253, HB2273, HB2040, HB1586, HB3788, HB3993, HB4690, HB4309, HB4696, HB2308, HB 1142, HB1533, HB1621, HB2242, HB2012, HB2193, HB2442, HB2464, HB2348, HB2313, HB2289, HB1942, HB2011, HB1629, HB2993, HB3592, HB3824, HB4076, HB4535, HB4623, HB4773, HB 1091, HB5115, HB5515, HB3372, HB5659, HB 127, HB386, HB 115, HB2868, HB 1249, HB4766, HB3720, HB4656, HB4879, HB 105, HB5383, HB4621, HB5431, HB5678, HB5534, HB4174, HB4212, HB3954, HB3966, HB3636, HB3918, HB1422, HB4765, HB4732, HB4742, HB5122, HB4518, HB5084, HB3986, HB4045, HB4144, HB3911, HB3976, HB4473, HB3425, HB3641, HB3642, HB3475, HB3509, HB3424, HB3383, HB4744, HB4531, HB4539, HB3159, HB5228, HB5370, HB4359, HB4398, HB4443, HB4466, HB3861, HB3849, HB4240, HB4706, HB4685, HB5354, HB5141, HB5686, HB3629, HB3554, HB3567, HB2015, HB3575, HB5381, HB1431, HB3514, HB4614, HB4546, HB4683, HB5681, HB5673, HB5663, HB4271, HB4350, HB4035, HB3807, HB3812, HB3552, HB3540, HB3715, HB3710, HB3664, HB4196, HB4233, HB4173, HB1998, HB3333, HB3510, HB4222, HB2070, HB2854, HB2347, HB 113, HB983, HB4847, HB1449, HB3833, HB5151, HB265, HB1845, HB782, HB 108, HB1960, HB158, HB1954, HB1955, HB2512, HB605, HB2581, HB2803, HB627, HB2667, HB1738, HB636, HB3679, HB2638, HB2655, HB871, HB2438, HB 1107, HB1765, HB1822, HB2153, HB4099, HB3732, HB3171, HB3178, HB3182, HB3749, HB2814, HB3977, HB4204, HB4207, HB4449, HB1820, HB1876, HB1939, HB1347, HB2593, HB2136, HB2132, HB2658, HB2413, HB2757, HB2080, HB3154, HB3063, HB3009, HB3448, HB3006, HB2844, HB3241, HB3680, HB3169, HB2078, HB2507, HB4559, HB3946, HB3460, HB3405, HB475, HB3463, HB3441, HB3520, HB2060, HB4731, HB4991, HB1991, HB5596, HB2014, HB2142, HB2673, HB2731, HB2417, HB2399, HB2301, HB3335, HB3234, HB3320, HB5573, HB4848, HB4748, HB4769, HB4795, HB2086, HB2234, HB2203, HB4916, HB5624, HB4505, HB139, HB5093, HB5302, HB5402, HB5606, HB2333, HB4630, HB4701, HB2583, HB2983, HB4924, HB3339, HB3793, HB3631, HB4882, HB5509, HB5499, HB5430, HB5561, HB5611, HB5043, HB5064, HB3733, HB3781, HB3219, HB32, HB4515, HB5348, HCR76, HCR127, HCR9, HCR40, HCR118, HR559

Keywords: low-THC cannabis, dispensing organization, Texas Compassionate-Use Program, medical use, patient access, registration, healthcare, legislation, Grow Texas fund, economic stabilization, infrastructure, oil and gas, constitutional amendment, severance tax, Texas STRONG defense fund, funding, public health, workforce development, revenue transfer, Veterans' Land Board

Transcript Highlights:

• The analysis is adopted. Okay.” “The analysis is adopted. Are there amendments?
• And so the ballot analysis that is, to summarize it, is confusing and perhaps hiding the full impact
• I'm just talking about the impact.
• Yes, I move the amendment of the draft analysis for HCR 2048 as—” “...the draft analysis for HCR 2048
• I mean, certainly we—you're describing impacts to a program, impacts to voters that you are wanting to

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The analysis is adopted. Okay. The analysis is adopted. Are there amendments?
• The analysis for SCR 1032.
• And so the ballot analysis that is, to summarize it, is confusing and perhaps hiding the full impact
• I'm just talking about the impact.
• I mean, certainly we... you're describing impacts to a program, impacts to voters that you are wanting

Summary: The committee met to review and adopt Legislative Council ballot measure analyses, with members repeatedly reminded that the hearing was limited to the accuracy, clarity, and impartiality of the summaries and not the merits of the underlying proposals. Steve Premack explained the statutory role of the analyses in the publicity pamphlet, and staff presented draft language for several measures. The committee considered and voted on multiple amendments, often debating whether proposed wording was clearer or instead crossed into advocacy or added unnecessary legal detail. For SCR 1004, members debated amendments to more closely mirror the measure’s text and to add language about electric vehicles and mileage, but several proposed changes were rejected. The analysis was ultimately adopted by an 8-6 roll call. HCR 2021 was then adopted without amendment by the same 8-6 margin. For HCR 2055, members debated whether the summary should say the Department of Homeland Security must “do everything” or “use all lawful means available,” and whether to add language about cartels acting “individually or collectively”; both amendments were rejected and the analysis was adopted 8-6. The committee next took up SCR 1004 on photo enforcement systems, where members proposed amendments to clarify that the measure would apply to red light cameras, to add “thereafter” regarding recurring voter approval, and to specify that approval would occur at the general election; those amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. On SCR 1032, dealing with instructional expenses and classroom site fund reductions, members debated adding a definition of the Classroom Site Fund and spelling out the waiver process in more detail; both amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. Finally, on HCR 2001 regarding citizenship identification and early voting, members rejected amendments that would have added background on current law, clarified that mail voting would be affected, added severability and revenue-source language, and struck the measure’s short title; the discussion was lengthy and at times contentious, but the transcript ends before a final roll-call vote on that measure is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Does it have an impact or no impact? And if there is an impact, how great is that impact?
• I do think it's helpful to, you know, there could be information in analysis saying that it doesn't impact
• I do think it's helpful to, you know, there could be information in analysis saying that it doesn't impact
• I do think it's helpful to, you know, there could be information in analysis saying that it doesn't impact
• anything in the plan. know, there could be information in analysis saying that it doesn't impact anything

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• It was very impactful.
• Does it have an impact or no impact? And if there is an impact, how great is that impact?
• to provide an actuarial analysis.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• I do think it's helpful to, you know, there could be information in analysis saying that it doesn't impact

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It was very impactful.
• Does it have an impact or no impact? And if there is an impact, how great is that impact?
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• I do think it's helpful to, you know, there could be information in analysis saying that it doesn't impact
• There could be information in analysis saying that it doesn't impact anything in the plan, but I think

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.

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:
• And quantitative analysis on how different types of regulations and reforms impact states.
• analysis analysis um<00:18:46.720> that<00:18:47.280> uh<00:18:47.440> that<00:
• The costbenefit analysis want that.

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:

• The financial analysis of the bill finds minimal cost.
• within the public interest, including the financial impacts.
• Where the evidence of such an analysis shows that the financial impacts are significant, the Legislature
• Were the evidence of such an analysis to show that the financial impacts are significant, the Legislature
• 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:

• We prepared a small entity regulatory analysis on each proposed rule and an impact...
• A regulatory analysis, a small entity regulatory analysis, and a small entity impact statement were prepared
• A regulatory analysis, a small entity regulatory analysis, and a small economic impact statement were
• A regulatory analysis, a small entity regulatory analysis, a small entity economic impact statement,
• There was a regulatory analysis, a small entity regulatory analysis, and a small entity economic impact

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee first approved the December 3 minutes, then heard a request from the Board of Clinical Laboratory Practice to amend its proposed rule on exempt test methods to add certain closed-system DNA/RNA tests, including rhinovirus. After testimony explaining that the board had considered late comments from BioMérieux and wanted the rule record to reflect that review, the committee agreed to a limited amendment and passed the motion unanimously. The Department of Agriculture then outlined broad rule updates affecting dairy, eggs, poultry, pesticides, animal health, environmental mitigation, and the Egg Product Utilization Commission. The commissioner said the changes mostly clarified existing requirements, updated references, and reduced some burdens, such as easing dairy hauler training/licensing timing and clarifying out-of-state grade A milk language. Members asked about dairy industry decline, the APUC scoring system, and the rationale for the milk-hauler and out-of-state milk provisions. The State Board of Dental Examiners presented extensive rule changes tied to recent legislation and workforce issues, including a new professional health program for dentists, expanded duties for assistants and hygienists, broader local anesthetic authority for hygienists, and fee increases to fund the program and cover administrative costs. Testimony from Dr. Edward May strongly supported the professional health program based on his own recovery experience. The committee also heard from Game and Fish on rules easing some guide/outfitter experience requirements, allowing electronic exams, and modifying boating safety equipment rules, with no public comment and no fiscal impact. Later, Health and Human Services received approval for an extension to update tattoo/body art rules and a separate motion to repeal an obsolete nurse aide training chapter. HHS also described nursing facility rule updates, lodging sanitation revisions, and related clarifications on licensing, safety, pest control, and fire requirements. The Department of Environmental Quality received an extension for septic-system installer rules, and also presented rules for above-ground storage tanks and water/wastewater operator certification, including new fees and third-party testing options. The Industrial Commission’s oil and gas division described multiple rule changes, some withdrawn after comments, including drilling unit flexibility, site stability, wildfire authority, and streamlined transport/reporting procedures. Finally, DPI began presenting several rule packages, including school construction loan limits, school bus standards, cooperative agreements, special education rules for public charter schools, and new math curriculum and intervention requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• and the ACT actual analysis Baseline and the ACT actual analysis again<00:14:56.560> suggested
• updated actuar analysis and each actu<00:36:26.440> analysis<00:36:26.839> had<00:36:27.000
• and there was update acttion analysis and there was update acttion analysis created<00:36:33.119
• <00:36:52.560> and that October 2023 actually analysis and that October 2023 actually analysis
• <01:03:56.760> notes position related to local impact notes position related to local impact

Bills: HF3

Keywords: legislative auditor, reporting, accountability, state finance, executive agency oversight, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• also the defrayal analysis and calculation if needed. ...and then, as I said, also the defrayal analysis
• about to be able to do an analysis.
• um about to be able to do an analysis um about to be able to do an analysis and<00:12:58.519>
• research and applied policy analysis research and applied policy analysis focusing<00:30:25.880>
• blue um where State policies um impact blue um where State policies um impact uh<00:32:37.159>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So by suspending it, what will be the impact?
• done here as to what will be the impact, you know, obviously the impact of dropping down to a 7.25 assumption
• So we do have that impact. We can understand some of those impacts on our priorities.
• So we do have that impact. We can understand some of those impact our priorities.
• I didn't intend, you know, the... ...analysis of the bill in terms of its impact on funding of our pension

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy executive committee met to approve the November minutes, which were adopted by voice vote. The committee then received an update from the Attorney General’s Office on two ongoing cases, Fowler and Joel Lynn, with briefing and oral argument timelines still pending. Michael Harbour of the Office of the State Actuary provided an actuarial update focused on ESSB 5357, explaining that the bill raised the assumed investment return from 7% to 7.25%, suspended UAL contribution rates for four years, and changed amortization for past benefit improvements; members asked for clarification on how those changes would affect long-term funding and contribution rates, especially for Plan 1 systems. A substantial portion of the meeting was devoted to committee discussion of interim priorities and the need for more analysis of recent pension legislation. Members emphasized the importance of understanding the fiscal impacts of ESSB 5357 and related pension changes before the September economic experience study, and several asked staff to provide a more preliminary walkthrough of the bill’s effects. The committee also discussed the LEOFF 1 study and broader questions about overfunding, including when a plan should be considered overfunded and whether overfunding should be addressed through merger or closure proposals. One member suggested reviewing the operating budget’s excess compensation proviso during the interim as well. Staff reviewed the draft 2025 interim work plan, proposing June topics including election of officers, a presentation on SB 5357 and its actuarial implications, and an initial LEOFF 1 study kickoff based on SB 5085 and HB 2034. The committee also placed excess compensation and demographic experience study items in a parking lot for possible later scheduling. The June agenda was adopted by roll call vote, with three ayes and three members absent or excused, and the meeting adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• direct impacts analysis of fishing and hunting as an outdoor recreation activity.
• An impact on how we consider the financial impact on treaty rights, right?
• So we have labor impacts.
• And it applies to revenue impacts as well as direct impacts, or the spending and the revenue side.
• It's a fairgrounds impact, but it's under that subsection of the county's impact. So.

Summary: The Financial Estimate Committee met on July 6, 2026, to begin work on the financial estimate for IP 28, after reviewing the statutory process and confirming that only IP 28 had cleared the signature threshold for consideration. Staff explained the committee’s duties under ORS 250.125 and the timeline for draft statements, public hearing, and final adoption. The committee also designated Carol Moreno C. Fuentes to file the committee’s eventual statements. Staff from the Department of Administrative Services and the Legislative Revenue Office presented preliminary analysis of IP 28, describing major uncertainties in estimating impacts because the measure is not a tax law change and would affect multiple industries and government functions. Preliminary figures discussed included an estimated $56.5 million loss in the current biennium and $6.7 million in reduced expenditures, with larger projected revenue losses of roughly $244.1 million to $258 million and reduced expenditures of $30.7 million to $34.9 million in 2027–29, plus $87.8 million to $88.3 million in increased expenditures. Analysts said the biggest effects would likely involve agriculture, fish and wildlife, hunting and fishing, local government enforcement, and possible shifts in state funding, but many impacts remained difficult to quantify. Committee members raised concerns about local government costs, law enforcement and prosecution burdens, impacts on the hospitality and recreation sectors, possible effects on tribal governments and treaty rights, and whether the measure would affect shellfish and crabbing. They also discussed the Humane Transition Fund, subsidies, possible litigation costs, and whether the statement should include broader uncertainty language and multiple scenarios. Members generally agreed the draft should be revised to better reflect uncertainty, clarify assumptions, and possibly use bullets or other formatting to improve readability. No vote was taken. The committee agreed to treat the current draft as a working version, with staff to revise it based on the discussion and return an updated draft before the next meeting scheduled for July 17 at 2 p.m., with both in-person and virtual participation available.

Transcript Highlights:

• impacts, and they in general have higher volumes and account for peak operational impacts to avoid understating
• these possible impacts as part of the environmental analysis, to make sure that the environmental impact
• and traffic and revenue analysis.
• That's exactly the diversion analysis.
• That's exactly the diversion analysis. And then finally, That's exactly the diversion analysis.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Interstate 5 Bridge met remotely with Washington legislative members to receive updates on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, including environmental review, cost and funding, tolling, and procurement for construction. Program staff said the final supplemental environmental impact statement was published in April 2026, with a federal record of decision expected in early summer. They described the recommended design as a single-level fixed-span bridge, centered I-5 alignment, C Street ramps, one auxiliary lane in each direction, and dispersed park-and-ride parking. Members raised concerns about transparency, the closed chat function, and the decision not to include two auxiliary lanes; staff said the one-lane option was recommended through consultation with partner agencies and analysis, but the final decision would come with the record of decision. Staff also said the diversion analysis projected less than 3% traffic diversion to I-205 in 2045, though members from Oregon and Washington expressed concern about impacts to their communities and asked for more detail on mitigation and decision-making. The committee also reviewed a major cost update. Staff said the full five-mile program is now estimated at $13.5 billion to $15.2 billion, with a likely cost of $14.4 billion, up from a 2022 estimate of $5 billion to $7.5 billion, citing inflation, schedule delays, scope changes, and more detailed risk modeling. They said the first funded phase has been reduced to a $5.68 billion package focused on the Columbia River bridge replacement, connections to I-5, Hayden Island and SR-14, bridge demolition, tolling infrastructure, and advancing light rail design. Funding for that phase was described as $5.69 billion, including $2.1 billion federal funds, $1 billion from each state, and $1.5 billion in projected toll revenue. Members asked what would happen if costs rise further; staff said the estimate includes substantial contingency, the project will use progressive design-build to manage risk, and the team will continue updating the finance plan annually. A separate tolling and traffic-revenue presentation explained that four toll scenarios were analyzed using regional travel demand modeling, a toll diversion model, and a post-processing review. All scenarios assume pre-completion tolling beginning July 1, 2028, a 50% low-income discount for eligible users, and exemptions for tribal preemptions, emergency vehicles, maintenance vehicles, and organized militia. Staff said the low-income discount would affect about 4% to 6% of annual transactions and reduce annual revenues by roughly 2% to 3%. They said Scenario 2 was used for the financial analysis and is sufficient to support the $1.5 billion toll contribution in the funded phase. Members asked about toll collection costs, revenue impacts of the discount, and how the scenarios differed; staff said collection costs are expected to be in line with other WSDOT toll facilities, but exact costs are not yet set because toll rates are not final. Finally, WSDOT staff outlined procurement and delivery steps for construction. They said WSDOT will be the lead contracting agency, using progressive design-build, with a request for qualifications targeted for early July 2026, a request for proposals in October, contractor selection in April 2027, construction starting in 2028, and tolling beginning in 2028. Staff said the approach is intended to consolidate scope, reduce interface risk, and allow transparent negotiation with an independent cost estimator, while preserving an off-ramp if a fair price cannot be reached. Members asked for more detail on timing, cost allocation, and the share of the first phase funded by tolls; staff estimated tolls account for about 26% of the first phase cost.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:37.760> of laws understanding the full impact of laws understanding the full impact
• way we could measure across the same methodology. analysis required in the enacting analysis required
• The actual analysis comes out and the agency says, well, we were reacting to the actual analysis.
• Row, it's not about policy; it's about impact.
• Troopers uh some question on the impact Troopers uh some question on the impact to<01:20:29.040>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the fiscal note process, prompted by concerns raised in a prior hearing about the fiscal note for the Paid Family and Medical Leave law. Chair Marty, Senator Pratt, and Senator Wiklund said the goal was not to revisit the bill itself but to strengthen understanding of fiscal note standards, the role of the Legislative Budget Office (LBO), and communication with agencies. They emphasized bipartisan concern that fiscal notes must be respected and that the process should be clearer going forward. Christian Larison of the LBO explained that the 2024 fiscal note issues stemmed from three main problems: choosing the proper baseline for a program that had not yet started, interpreting the seven-day qualifying event/waiting period, and determining whether DEED could adjust the first-year premium rate. He said the LBO, DEED, MMB, and House fiscal staff ultimately used the October 2023 actuarial analysis as the baseline because it was the most recent and likely most accurate estimate, but that choice meant the fiscal note did not show the difference from the 2023 enacted budget. He also described how DEED later interpreted the seven-day provision as a waiting period and how the premium-rate assumptions affected the fiscal impact. Larison outlined possible responses, including more assertive early communication from the LBO, providing more detailed analysis in unusual cases, and possibly creating a working group through the LBO Oversight Commission to consider new standards for substantial assumption changes, complex new programs, and third-party actuarial work. He also noted the LBO has authority to issue unapproved fiscal notes if standards are not met, though it has not used that authority. In questions, Senator Murphy asked about protecting the credibility of fiscal notes, and Larison said maintaining independence, objectivity, and consistent standards is central to the LBO’s role. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is all impacting housing.
• And I have to tell you, industry agreed with this analysis.
• But this is a world of analysis that predates us in many ways.
• If you're at a certain threshold, we would also be doing an impact analysis kind of statement, which
• That's compiled into an analysis report, which feeds into the CEC's process, and then we take That analysis

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Regulatory Authority held its first hearing to examine how California’s regulatory framework affects housing production, affordability, and timelines. Chair Pacheco and Assemblymember Haney framed the discussion around the state’s housing shortage and the need to reduce costs while maintaining environmental, safety, and community protections. The first panel featured housing experts and industry representatives who argued that state regulations, code complexity, utility constraints, and agency review processes add substantial cost and delay to development. Bill Fulton described overlapping state and local land-use authorities and the tension among housing, coastal protection, climate, and wildfire goals. CBIA’s Chris Ochoa and California Apartment Association representative Bob Raymer said building codes, energy mandates, and agency processes have materially increased per-home costs, and they urged more centralized affordability analysis and greater scrutiny of regulatory impacts. The Bay Area Council’s Louis Marante called for a statewide cost target for housing and stronger timelines and accountability for state agency reviews. The second panel brought in state agencies to explain their roles. HCD said its housing element enforcement, streamlining laws, and technical assistance have helped increase production, shorten entitlement timelines, and improve compliance by local governments. CARB said SB 375 is a planning law that does not directly regulate land use, and argued that regional housing assumptions in sustainable communities strategies are not being fully implemented on the ground. The Coastal Commission said it works with local governments to balance coastal protection, sea-level-rise risk, and housing, and noted recent guidance and pilot efforts to streamline housing approvals in the coastal zone. The Energy Commission said its building energy standards are designed to be cost-effective and save consumers money over time, though they can add some design and documentation complexity. Fish and Wildlife and DTSC both emphasized early engagement and collaboration to reduce delays while protecting natural resources and public health; DTSC said it is refining vapor intrusion guidance and using brownfield grants to support redevelopment. The State Water Resources Control Board said it uses general orders and basin planning to provide predictable permitting while balancing water quality, water rights, and housing needs, and noted billions in grants and loans for water infrastructure and site remediation that can support housing affordability. In response to questions from Assemblymember Haney, several agencies described ongoing coordination across departments, including regular meetings among HCD, CARB, the Coastal Commission, and transportation agencies, as well as broader interagency efforts to reduce redundancies and identify pinch points in project delivery. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the main outcome was informational testimony and discussion of possible future reforms to improve coordination, predictability, and affordability in state regulatory processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• No regulatory analysis was required, as the proposed rules are not expected to have an impact on the
• A regulatory analysis or economic impact statement on small entities was not required by North Dakota
• A small entity regulatory analysis and impact statement were done on the proposed rules, although it
• A small entity regulatory analysis and small entity economic impact statement were prepared and also
• A small entity regulatory analysis and small entity economic impact statement were prepared and also

Summary: The Administrative Rules Committee met on June 11 and first approved the March 12, 2026 minutes by voice vote. It then granted the Board of Medicine an extension of time to implement rules tied to recent legislation, including North Dakota’s participation in the physician assistant licensure compact and a new physician nutrition continuing education requirement. The Board said it was waiting on compact rules and fee information before finalizing its own changes. The committee heard a lengthy presentation from the Office of Management and Budget on broad personnel rule revisions, including salary administration, recruitment, leave, sick leave, funeral leave, service awards, appeals, and shared leave. OMB said the changes modernize HR language and implement recent legislation such as enhanced annual leave for hard-to-fill positions and new hire leave. Members questioned the hard-to-fill leave provisions, but OMB and counsel said those standards come from statute, not the rules. The committee also heard and accepted rule packages from the Lottery, the Board of Examiners for Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, the State Electrical Board, the Industrial Commission, PERS, and Health and Human Services, with each agency describing mostly technical, clarifying, or statutory-conforming changes and noting the public notice and comment process. The most significant action came during the Gaming Commission rules presentation. After questioning whether the commission had authority to raise the poker tournament buy-in limit from $300 to $1,500, members moved to void Section 99-01.3-09-01 on the ground that the agency lacked statutory authority for that change. The motion passed on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed several gaming-related issues, including online raffles, kiosk use, advertising restrictions, and the broader policy question of whether charities should be allowed to own bars, but took no further formal action on those topics.

Transcript Highlights:

• Impact the per-gallon price of gasoline.
• The standardized regulatory impact assessment did include some analysis of that, but it was accompanied
• Fossil fuels do have impacts, full stop.
• I mean, it does go into our analysis.
• Our analysis finds that this trade-off Our analysis finds that this trade-off, in some instances burning

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held its annual oversight hearing on the transportation fuels sector, focused on California’s fuel transition, the announced refinery closures by Phillips 66 and Valero, and the potential effects on supply, prices, and the broader fuel system. Committee leadership said the state needs a system-wide transition plan rather than a piecemeal approach, and state witnesses from CARB, the CEC, and DPMO described the fuel market as a complex, interconnected ecosystem involving crude production, refining, storage, imports, and delivery. They emphasized that declining gasoline demand from EV adoption is occurring alongside shrinking in-state refining capacity, which could increase volatility and price spikes if not managed carefully. CARB Chair Liane Randolph reviewed the state’s climate and air-quality programs, including AB 32, SB 32, the 2022 scoping plan, the low-carbon fuel standard, and vehicle emissions rules. She said these policies have reduced emissions substantially but that California still faces major ozone and PM2.5 problems, especially in disadvantaged communities. Randolph also said federal actions challenging California waivers could complicate the state’s clean-air efforts, and she noted that while liquid fuels will still be needed in some sectors, the state must continue reducing fossil fuel dependence while protecting public health. CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda and DPMO Director Ty Milder presented data on gasoline demand, refinery throughput, crude imports, and price differentials. Gunda said the Legislature’s special-session laws gave the agencies transparency and planning tools, and that the CEC is developing a fuels transition plan while evaluating whether any regulatory tools should be used. Milder previewed DPMO findings that Californians have paid a long-running “mystery gasoline surcharge” averaging 41 cents per gallon since 2015, with higher margins concentrated in branded gasoline and among vertically integrated firms. He said the data show a concentrated market with some refiners doing well and others struggling, and that DPMO will continue investigating price behavior, competition, and supply risks. Members pressed the witnesses on whether state regulations contributed to refinery exits or higher prices, and on whether the agencies had adequately analyzed consumer costs. Witnesses said they had not yet implemented the new permissive tools from SB X1-2 and AB X2-1 because they were still assessing risks and benefits, and they stressed that refinery closures and capital decisions are driven by broader market conditions as well as regulation. No vote was taken; the hearing was informational, with the committee seeking updates and urging the agencies to develop a practical transition strategy that balances affordability, reliability, climate goals, and worker/community protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• identified in the analysis.
• And frankly, the impact of all taxes and impact fees on the production of new housing.
• We will be supporting your bill that requires cities to conduct an analysis on the potential impact a
• , and clarifying the existing requirement to engage with impacted community members throughout the analysis
• , and clarify the existing requirement to engage with impacted community members throughout the analysis

Summary: The Assembly Local Government Committee heard a long agenda of housing, water, and local finance bills, with the chair repeatedly reminding attendees about hearing rules and noting that several measures were being heard without a quorum at first. Early items included AB 407, which would broaden eligibility for state-run loan and financing programs to help small businesses fund environmental, seismic, and ADA upgrades, and AB 93, which would require data centers to estimate and report water use and follow state best practices. AB 93 drew support from water advocates and local government groups, while the Data Center Coalition opposed it, arguing the bill could be overly restrictive, difficult to retrofit, and raise trade secret or security concerns. The committee also heard AB 650 on housing element review, AB 1044 on creating a new Tulare County groundwater sustainability agency, and AB 523 on allowing proxy voting for single-representative member agencies on the Metropolitan Water District board; all drew broad support from local agencies and related stakeholders and no recorded opposition in the room. Several housing bills were presented as part of a broader fast-track housing package. AB 507 would streamline adaptive reuse of office buildings into housing, especially in downtowns with high vacancy; supporters said it would revive urban cores and help meet housing and climate goals, while the League of California Cities and a few cities opposed it unless amended, citing concerns about one-size-fits-all by-right approval and fee limitations. AB 1294 would create a universal housing application and limit early application requirements; it drew strong support from housing and business groups, with the American Planning Association and League of California Cities seeking more flexibility and input. AB 610 would require local governments to disclose housing constraints in their housing elements and limit new constraints after certification for three years unless disclosed; supporters said it would improve transparency and certainty, while opponents warned it could chill legitimate local policy choices and inclusionary housing requirements. Both AB 610 and AB 698, which would require analysis of the housing and property tax impacts of proposed transfer taxes, were moved out of committee on 7-0 votes after discussion and amendments. The committee also heard AB 1112, which would repeal an outdated Riverside County property tax provision affecting Rancho Mirage; the city argued it was the only qualifying no-low property tax city not receiving the standard minimum and sought equal treatment. After quorum was established, the bill was passed 6-0 with amendments and sent to Appropriations. AB 1021, heard later, would make it easier for school districts and other local education agencies to build employee housing, with the author citing teacher recruitment and retention problems and support from education stakeholders. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized the need to balance housing production, local fiscal tools, and infrastructure needs, and several authors accepted committee amendments and committed to continued negotiations with opponents.