Transcript Highlights:

• spending commission. Good morning. spending commission. Good morning.
• Nizumintow Campaign Spending Commission. Nizumintow Campaign Spending Commission.
• Um this is a Spending Commission.
• not it was not a campaign spending not it was not a campaign spending issue.<00:38:12.480> It
• c> restrictions limitations on geographical restrictions limitations on geographical restrictions

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 126, which would change civil asset forfeiture law. The Attorney General’s Office, Honolulu Police Department, and county prosecutors opposed the bill’s proposed SD1, arguing that requiring a criminal conviction and changing how forfeiture proceeds are distributed would weaken or effectively end the tool, create fiscal and law enforcement problems, and make it harder to address organized crime or cases where an owner cannot be identified. The Public Defender’s Office, Community Alliance on Prisons, Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, and other supporters argued the measure would improve transparency and accountability, protect property rights, and reduce abuses that disproportionately affect low-income people. The chair questioned law enforcement about fairness, storage of seized property, and access to counsel, and the discussion focused heavily on whether forfeiture should depend on a conviction. No vote was taken. The committee then heard HB 280, which would make the Community Outreach Court permanent and appropriate funds for it as a division of the First Circuit district court. The Department of the Attorney General and Judiciary supported the concept and described the court’s success in helping people resolve cases, clear license stoppers, recall bench warrants, and access services, but suggested amendments to remove the Attorney General from the bill’s definition and funding mechanism. The Public Defender, Department of Human Services, mental health and substance use advocates, neighborhood and community groups, and others strongly supported the bill, emphasizing its benefits for people facing housing instability, behavioral health issues, and transportation barriers. No opposition was voiced, and no vote was taken. The committee also heard HB 370, which would increase partial public campaign financing for elective offices. The Campaign Spending Commission supported the original bill and asked the committee to restore the original percentage amounts, keep the proposed funding increases, and reinstate funding for two additional full-time staff positions. Supporters said the public financing system has not kept pace with inflation and needs modernization to be viable; a few testifiers opposed the measure. The committee reported 30 in support, two opposed, and one comment, and then moved on without a vote. Finally, HB 371 was heard, a campaign contribution bill that would bar state and county contractors, grantees, and certain related persons from contributing during the contract period. The Campaign Spending Commission said the bill is intended to address pay-to-play concerns and false-name contributions, while the State Procurement Office raised concerns about the burden of requiring agencies to provide contract information for all contracts regardless of dollar value. The testimony ended with the commission saying it was working with procurement and the Attorney General on implementation details; no vote was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• That 5% is limited to those statutory funds that agencies have.
• Chair, that you must track the 5% transfer limitation.
• There's a few different, probably the, yeah, far more limiting.
• The other example of those would be in the member-directed spending.
• And they have until '27 to spend it? Sorry, Mr.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, we've seen consumer spending has pulled back, business spending has pulled back.
• So therefore, do we want to spend it here or spend it in other states?
• Under the tax spending limit, $6.9 billion, and under the consolidated general revenue limit, $14.2 billion
• So as the tax spending limit has the lowest capacity, it is the current controlling limit.
• We need to be looking at the rollback limits because... ...exemption limits.

Bills: SB 1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee held its first hearing of the 89th regular session, adopted nearly identical committee rules from the previous legislature by a 15-0 vote, and began review of Senate Bill 1, the state budget for fiscal years 2026-27. Chair Huffman outlined the budget framework, emphasizing conservative spending, a $332.9 billion all-funds budget, and major priorities including property tax relief, public education, border security, health and human services, transportation, energy, and water infrastructure. She also introduced committee and leadership staff and described the hearing schedule and public testimony procedures. Comptroller Glenn Hager presented the biennial revenue estimate, saying the state has $194.6 billion available for general-purpose spending, including a $23.8 billion ending balance, but warned that revenue growth is returning to more normal levels and that lawmakers should avoid using temporary spikes for ongoing commitments. Senators questioned him extensively about the Economic Stabilization Fund cap, sales tax trends, inflation, and whether the state should consider raising the cap or using severance-tax revenues differently. Hager said the Rainy Day Fund is expected to hit its cap, which would leave more severance-tax revenue in general revenue, and he stressed that infrastructure needs remain significant. The Legislative Budget Board then gave a detailed overview of SB 1 and the budget’s major components. LBB staff explained that the bill includes continued funding for the Foundation School Program, $850 million for the Texas State Technical College endowment, $1.3 billion for the Texas University Fund, $6.5 billion for border security, salary increases for correctional officers and state troopers, $3 billion for dementia research, higher community attendant wages, expanded community-based care, $5 billion for the Texas Energy Fund, and funding to clear volunteer fire department grant backlogs. They also outlined supplemental priorities such as water infrastructure, retirement legacy payments, rail grade separations, wildfire aircraft, and emergency facilities, and said the current controlling budget limit is the tax spending limit. A major portion of the hearing focused on property tax relief. LBB explained that prior-session relief grew from an expected $18 billion to $22.7 billion because of higher-than-anticipated property values and interactions among hold-harmless provisions, and that SB 1 continues and expands relief with $51 billion in total property tax relief, including $3 billion more for compression, $3 billion to raise the homestead exemption from $100,000 to $140,000, and a $500 million placeholder for business tax relief. Senators discussed the automatic nature of some of these costs, the effect of the non-homestead circuit breaker, the role of federal COVID funds, and the need to maintain school finance commitments if the state continues to compress school tax rates.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um uh I change their spending plans.
• there have been amendments to spending there have been amendments to spending plans<00:18:55.600
• There's you can amend spending plans.
• limited to $10,000. limited to $10,000.
• There are no testifiers. able to take the whole limit the whole able to take the whole limit the whole

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• President, I understand the budget limit bill.
• Did we spend all of that 2.6 million dollars last year? Mr.
• Then, what happens if those limit bills don't pass?
• So, you know, we historically only do about 10 limits bills.
• If you just spend a little bit of time, I've told every member that will spend 5 minutes with me and

Bills: HB3418, HB3985, HB3463, HB3002, HB4303, HB3919, HB3416, HB3417, HB3415, HB2206, HB3414, HB3265, HB3310, HB3413, HB4486, HB1219, SR39, SB1177, HB3298, HB2696, HB3941, HB3970, HB3264, HB3321, HB2650, HB3497, HB3980, HB3981, HB4421, HB3177, HB3322, HB3499, HB3500, HB3845, HB3742, HB3622, HB1250, HB2710, HB3831, HB4408, HB1002, HB3008, HB3086, HB3595, HB3678, HB4107, HB3695, HB3315, HB3590, HB3006, HB3151, HB2959, HB2398, HB3026, HB3467, HB4268, HB3372, HB2210, HB4359, HB4427

Keywords: public works, bidding procedures, construction contracts, transparency, public trust, electronic bidding, school districts, property rights, public nuisance, compensation claims, government enforcement, Oklahoma Safe Neighborhoods Act, municipal audit, state auditor, local government, financial transparency, gasoline tax allocations, counties, county officers, education

Transcript Highlights:

• This is just to give you an idea of how we're spending the funding.
• You have your non-defense spending, which is about $960 billion, and then your defense spending, which
• It cut overall mandatory and discretionary spending by about $1.2 trillion, including reducing spending
• So there's a limit on how much the federal government can.
• We shouldn't be spending lots of time debating over that.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is one General Fund spending item.
• those limitations.
• So the proposed time limits are two years at each.
• So the proposed time limits are two years at each.
• And some of them are limited and other are ongoing.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The hearing opened with Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst’s Office remarks on the May Revision, which both described efforts to reduce large out-year operating deficits through a mix of revenue increases, spending reductions, and reserve use. Finance said the May Revision more than halves projected deficits in later years, while LAO stressed that revenues are at unprecedented levels yet the state still faces a significant structural deficit and is drawing down reserves; LAO urged maintaining at least the administration’s level of budget solutions and adding to reserves rather than new ongoing commitments. The chair echoed concern about cuts to vulnerable populations and noted the tension between service reductions and requests for additional administrative positions. The committee then heard a series of California Health and Human Services and HCAI proposals, including additional legal support for CalHHS to respond to federal HR1 changes; a net-zero transfer of positions for a centralized eligibility/data-sharing platform; 988 crisis line implementation funding and continued work with the Trevor Project to train crisis centers to better serve LGBTQ youth; EMS data system maintenance funding; HCAI implementation of AB 1312 hospital charity care screening; SB 660 data exchange framework funding; CalRx biosimilar insulin reappropriation; and a diaper access initiative that would provide free diapers to newborns in participating hospitals and support a future direct-to-consumer purchasing option. Members questioned the diaper program’s universal design, the use of a Public Contract Code exemption, and the selection of Baby2Baby, with the chair expressing concern about optics and the lack of an income threshold. The committee also discussed distressed hospital funding, with HCAI requesting up to $50 million for another round of grants to hospitals in immediate financial distress. HCAI said it receives annual and quarterly financial reports but the data lag limits real-time monitoring, and the LAO recommended stronger program parameters and turnaround plans. Members argued the repeated need for distressed hospital aid reflects a structural problem, not a short-term gap, and raised broader concerns about hospital reimbursement and patient flow. Other items included reverting $19.6 million in unused opioid settlement funds from HCAI to DHCS for General Fund offset, and a Rural Health Transformation Program request to increase HCAI spending authority to cover the full federal award. Later, DMHC presented funding requests to implement PBM licensing and financial review requirements under AB 116, modernize the managed care complaint system, and build an electronic claims settlement data system under AB 3275. The final major discussion focused on the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, which opposed the May Revision’s proposed reduction of its Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and a $6.7 million cut to community advocacy grants. The Commission argued these programs are core to Proposition 1’s goals of statewide innovation and community accountability, while Finance said the proposal is consistent with Proposition 1’s maximum funding levels and reflects a broader effort to prioritize direct services and use unspent prior-year funds; members pressed for more information and questioned whether the cuts would undermine the new behavioral health framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also adds the option for the Legislature to create general law to include conditions, limitations,
• That is the amendment. ...limitations or reasonable definitions. That is the amendment.
• And should we continue to levy these taxes on ourselves to be able to spend the resources necessary?
• Chairman, and senators, the amendment to the amendment limits the exemption to a single-family home,
• It limits the tourist development tax revenue that must be spent to promote and advertise tourism to

Summary: The Finance and Tax Committee met and first heard SB 674, which would allow county property appraisers, like tax collectors already can, to budget for and pay hiring or retention bonuses if approved in their Department of Revenue budget. Support came from property appraiser representatives, who said the bill would help them compete for specialized staff without requiring new funding. The bill was reported favorably. The committee then considered SJR 318, a proposed constitutional amendment on tangible personal property used on agricultural land, along with an amendment clarifying the exemption’s scope and allowing the Legislature to set conditions by general law. Farm Bureau and the Florida Chamber supported the measure, and the committee adopted the amendment and reported the joint resolution favorably. Members also took up CS for SB 1664, which would require voter reapproval of local discretionary taxes when they expire; an amendment changed the bill to require expiration dates and tied reapproval to tax expiration rather than a fixed eight-year cycle. Local government and tourism groups raised concerns about impacts on tourist development taxes, transportation surtaxes, beaches funding, and long-term financing, while supporters argued voters should periodically affirm local taxes. The committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably. Next, the committee considered SJR 1510 and its implementing bill SB 1512, both dealing with a homestead-style property tax benefit for certain long-term leased residential properties. After multiple amendments narrowed the proposal substantially, limiting it to one qualifying property and then to single-family homes, mobile homes, and condominium units, counties and cities still opposed the measures as a tax shift to other taxpayers. The sponsor said the changes reduced the scope and fiscal impact, and both measures were reported favorably. Finally, the committee heard SPB 7034, the Senate tax package, which includes permanent sales tax exemptions, multiple tax holidays, motor vehicle fee reductions, a property tax study, rural investment tax credits, a freeze on local communications services tax rates, and other tax changes, with an estimated $2.1 billion revenue reduction. Testimony was mixed: property appraisers supported the property tax study, while many public commenters opposed the firearm and ammunition tax holiday and urged inclusion of gun safes and locks instead. County, city, tourism, and lodging representatives raised concerns about tourist development tax limits and other local revenue impacts, while supporters emphasized tax relief and the study’s value. After debate, the committee adopted a motion to submit SPB 7034 as a committee bill and reported it favorably.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the upper payment limit is considered the Medicare limit for each state.
• The Medicare limit for each state.
• The upper payment limit program, or access payment program, is limited to the private hospitals currently
• Because their 85 is what they have to spend, or at least what they have to say they're spending...
• Because their 85 is what they have to spend, or at least what they have to say they're spending...

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• liability companies, limited liability partnerships, and limited partnerships in their first year of
• One is related to the temporary extension of the existing limit, where the credits are limited to $5
• So there's no limitation at all up to that point, which means...
• Limits it to 70%. They can claim up to 70% of their liability.
• That was what it was always limited to, yes.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And as we know, property taxes are a result of spending, right? The taxes go up if you spend more.
• taxes are a result of spending, right? taxes are a result of spending, right?
• Taxes The taxes go up if you spend more.
• It's a pretty go down if you spend less.
• And this would limit that.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Please note that the chairs, at their discretion, may further limit the time for testimony.
• These are already in place under the AFC... ...service limits.
• to spend down to a level, leaving them only $542 a month to live on.
• to spend down to a level, leaving them only $542 a month to live on.
• than spending all the way down to $542, making community-based care accessible.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing focused on two broad sets of issues: home- and community-based care, and school-based Medicaid reimbursement. In the morning session, legislators and advocates testified on bills affecting children and disabled enrollees, including proposals to clarify rate-setting for home health and home care services (H. 767/S. 870), allow family members and spouses to be paid caregivers under MassHealth (H. 1394/S. 886 and related bills), extend MassHealth coverage for applied behavior analysis and other therapies beyond age 21 for adults with autism and developmental disabilities (H. 1351/S. 871), and protect medically fragile children by improving access to continuous skilled nursing. In the later portion of the hearing, testimony shifted to a bill to improve MassHealth reimbursement for schools (S. 862), with speakers describing the school mental health crisis and the need to reinvest Medicaid funds directly into school health services. Witnesses on the home care rate-setting bill said current reimbursement methods are opaque and outdated, contributing to workforce shortages, unfilled shifts, long waitlists, and patients remaining in hospitals longer than necessary. Home care providers and trade groups argued the bill would not set rates directly but would require more transparent methodology and fuller consideration of real costs such as wages, benefits, taxes, training, and technology. On caregiver bills, many family members and provider organizations described the financial and emotional strain of caring for disabled or medically fragile relatives, especially when parents, spouses, or guardians are barred from being paid caregivers. They argued the bills would recognize existing unpaid care, help families remain at home, and reduce reliance on more expensive institutional care. Advocates for adult ABA coverage said services remain medically necessary after age 21 and that ending coverage at that age creates an inequitable “cliff” for MassHealth members compared with those with private insurance. For the PACE/community care bill, elder law attorneys and PACE advocates said current MassHealth income rules force some older adults with modestly higher incomes to spend down to $542 per month, making community living unrealistic and pushing people toward nursing homes. They supported changing the eligibility structure to a premium-based approach that would allow more people to remain in the community. On the school Medicaid bill, advocates said schools are providing effective, preventive mental health care, but reimbursement currently flows to municipalities rather than directly back to school health budgets, limiting districts’ ability to hire and retain staff. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee heard testimony and several witnesses requested favorable reports on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• Customers for wildfire mitigation spending.
• , as well as additional living expenses, again up to the policy limit.
• things to spend money on, and then afterwards they are audited.
• So what we actually did was spend more than we were authorized to spend on wildfire mitigation.
• of their insurance, the Coverage A limit, because after catastrophes, Coverage A limits are frequently

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and broader options for reforming California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the scale of wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh trade-offs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described long delays in compensation, housing insecurity, and what they viewed as a system that protects utility shareholders more than victims. They urged greater transparency, clearer accountability for utility spending and safety performance, faster and fuller compensation for survivors, and reforms such as independent audits and better alignment of utility incentives with wildfire prevention and restitution. The second panel began with Tom Welsh of the California Earthquake Authority, who explained that the SB 254 report was intended as a broad inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations. He described the report’s process, including stakeholder submissions, workstreams, and a convergence process, and outlined the current wildfire fund structure: utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims after a covered wildfire, and the CPUC later determines prudency and possible reimbursement back to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon summarized compensation data, saying utilities paid about $38 billion between 2017 and 2024, with major shares going to injured parties, insurers, and public entities, while litigation costs and survivors’ own losses remain substantial. He noted that legal fees and delays reduce the amount survivors ultimately receive. Utility and public-interest witnesses offered differing views on the report’s pathways. PG&E’s Tyson Smith said the report shows inaction is the worst outcome and argued for community wildfire risk reduction, equitable allocation of catastrophe costs, and state-led resilience tools. LADWP’s Fernando Valero emphasized the vulnerability of municipal utilities and cities, and supported inverse condemnation reform, a state-sponsored liability insurance framework, damages and subrogation limits, and stronger insurance access. Consumer Attorneys of California’s John Fisk argued that IOU-caused fires are not natural disasters but the result of negligence and sometimes criminal conduct, and opposed reducing utility liability while supporting stronger oversight and audits. The Public Advocates Office’s Nathaniel Skinner focused on affordability, saying ratepayers already bear large and growing wildfire costs and warning against shifting more costs onto bills without measurable risk reduction and tighter accountability. Committee members then began questioning witnesses about what counts as measurable mitigation, how to define full and fair compensation, and how any fast-pay process should work.

Transcript Highlights:

• They keep those dollars and spend them for specific purposes.
• So universities have to submit us a detailed spending plan and what they're going to spend those funds
• So they have to, universities have to submit us a detailed spending plan and what they're going to spend
• I’m going to spend it over two or three years.” “Here’s what I’m going to spend on X.
• Now, obviously, the spend on that's about 4%.

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee met to hear an overview of State University System finances from the Board of Governors and detailed budget presentations from Florida State University, the University of Central Florida, and the University of North Florida. The witnesses explained how university budgets are organized into fund categories such as education and general, contracts and grants, auxiliaries, local/designated funds, capital projects, and component units such as direct support organizations. They also described carry forward funds, the statutory reserve and spending-plan requirements, the PICO/HECO capital outlay process, and how universities use investment accounts, audits, and board oversight to manage restricted and unspent funds. The universities emphasized that most operating dollars are restricted to specific uses and that state support helps keep tuition low. Members asked about differences in funding levels among institutions, especially why FSU receives more funding than UCF despite lower enrollment. Officials said preeminence funding, performance funding, and special legislative appropriations explain much of the difference, and the Board of Governors noted that Florida now has four preeminent universities, with UCF nearing that status. Questions also focused on what happens to unspent carry forward money, how it is invested, and whether the Board of Governors or Legislature can require funds to be returned; officials said the money is invested conservatively, subject to board and audit oversight, and can roll forward under a detailed spending plan, though the Legislature can change funding levels. The committee also discussed capital projects, with members asking about delays, inflation, and whether more projects should be phased or funded faster; witnesses said PICO funds remain with the state until needed and are reimbursed as construction proceeds. A substantial portion of the discussion covered athletics, research, student fees, and endowments. The universities said athletics is generally expected to be self-supporting, though limited use of auxiliary or carry forward funds may be allowed for projects benefiting the broader student body. They also described the financial pressures from name, image, and likeness changes and new NCAA-related costs, and said institutions are planning for those changes now. On research, the universities explained sponsored research funding, indirect cost recovery, compliance obligations, and tech transfer, but did not provide specific commercialization revenue figures and said they would follow up. Members also asked about student fee increases, student input, counseling and wellness funding, and how housing costs affect affordability; the universities said student committees and boards review fees, and aid packaging is intended to keep student debt low. Endowments were described as being held in separate foundations/DSOs with independent investment committees and used mainly for scholarships, faculty support, and research.

Transcript Highlights:

• spending of surtax dollars to $1 billion in fiscal year 2024.
• It's hard to spend those dollars in the amount of time that was allocated.
• I think we've seen some limitations.
• , is that the spending is growing by more than 3% or 4% a year.
• And so if you generate more revenue, can you spend more revenue?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 55, the governor’s FY25 supplemental budget proposal to spend about $1.3 billion in surplus Fair Share revenue. House and Senate chairs framed the bill as a one-time opportunity to invest fairly in education and transportation, while also noting the need to protect the state’s long-term fiscal balance. Administration officials said the proposal should be considered alongside the FY26 budget and related bills, since the governor’s broader Fair Share plan aims for roughly an even split between education and transportation over time. Secretary of Administration and Finance Matthew Gorzkowicz, Transportation Secretary Monica Tibbits-Nutt, and Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler outlined the administration’s priorities. Transportation funding would go mainly to the MBTA and related reserves, including money for the Federal Transit Administration reserve, MBTA stabilization reserve, low-income fares, winter resilience, RTA workforce support, MassDOT workforce and project delivery, and micro-transit grants. Education funding would support universal preschool expansion, early education and care capacity, early literacy tutoring, adult basic education and ESOL, early college and career technical education, MyCAP expansion, and special education circuit breaker funding. The administration emphasized that many of these investments are one-time or multi-year measures designed to address current needs without creating unsustainable recurring costs. Committee members raised concerns about regional equity, especially the large share of transportation money going to the MBTA versus regional transit authorities and rural areas. Several members asked for more detail on how the proposal would benefit Western Massachusetts and other non-MBTA regions, and whether micro-transit and Chapter 90-related investments would be sufficient. Education questions focused on special education reimbursement shortfalls, federal funding cuts to school districts, and how CTE and vocational investments would align students with workforce needs. The administration said it would provide additional data on MBTA versus RTA investment and explained that the special education circuit breaker and transportation reimbursement changes were intended to improve predictability and relief for districts. After the administration panel, Jessica Tang of AFT Massachusetts testified in support of using Fair Share funds to protect public education amid federal uncertainty and cuts. She argued that schools are facing a fiscal cliff, that vulnerable students would be hit hardest by funding losses, and that the Fair Share revenue should be used to preserve services and support students’ needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, you mentioned city limits. Is there a city limit, or is the city limit the county line?
• It's big because it limits the opportunities for you all as a legislative body.
• Is a force and good at spending money; we spend, in fact, over a hundred million dollars a month.
• We have to find money from other places that we're not spending wisely and spend it on what's really
• In Bernal County, to spend, estimated completion August 26.

Transcript Highlights:

• liability companies, limited partnerships, and... ...the annual tax paid by limited liability companies
• , limited partnerships, and limited liability partnerships in their first year of existence.
• This credit limitation is a more modest version of prior credit limitations that have historically been
• We would expect very limited impact.
• And we just don't think that's a good approach, spending more reserves, spending down reserves at a time

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a series of May Revision budget items, beginning with the State Controller’s Office. SCO described requests for Fiscal Book of Record stabilization, payroll system implementation, ACFR reporting support, and unclaimed property outreach funding. Members focused on the Fiscal system’s July go-live, the improved timeliness of the ACFR, and the unclaimed property program’s roughly $15 billion balance and outreach efforts. The Department of Finance and LAO raised no major concerns, and the item was closed after discussion of how the new outreach funding would be used. The committee then considered several revenue proposals. Finance presented a proposal to tax pre-written digital software and SaaS, with estimated General Fund gains of $450 million in 2026-27 and $900 million ongoing; LAO suggested broader digital tax changes and a business-use exemption, while industry groups opposed the measure as a tax on essential digital tools. CDTFA also presented an administrative request tied to the software tax, and later a $10 million budget reduction reflecting lower operational needs. The committee then heard a federal conformity proposal for new children’s tax-deferred accounts, which LAO supported, and a proposal to cut the first-year LLC/LP minimum tax from $800 to $400, which Finance said would aid small business formation but LAO argued was poorly targeted and would reduce revenue. Another major item was a permanent business tax credit limitation beginning in 2027, capping credits at the greater of $5 million per corporation or 50% of pre-credit liability. Finance said it would raise about $850 million in 2026-27 and more in later years, while LAO noted it would mainly affect large firms using the R&D credit and could also touch California Competes and other programs. Public testimony split sharply between business groups opposing the cap and advocates supporting it as a progressive revenue measure. The committee also heard FTB’s CalFile realignment proposal, which would retain a smaller staff to continue improving the free filing system and return most of the prior funding to the General Fund. The hearing concluded with the California Arts Council’s request to reauthorize the Keep Arts in Schools voluntary contribution fund, which brings in about $221,000 to $266,000 annually for arts grants and teacher stipends. Members and advocates supported the item but also urged larger arts funding, including the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund. The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development then presented proposals for the California Civic Media Program, CA RISE reappropriation, and a reversion of unused Chips for America facility funds; LAO supported the latter two but was cautious about new civic media spending. Members raised concerns about the civic media program’s scope, including the exclusion of broadcast and the lack of a specific ethnic media set-aside, while GoBiz said funds would begin going out in the fall if approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• spend and demand more stuff.
• It's our responsibility to spend it, find new ways to spend it, and have no responsibility for it.
• <00:47:20.240> an spending so that we're not spending an spending so that we're not spending
• Spending does not make life easier on people; spending makes life harder.
• Spending does not make life easier on people; spending makes life harder.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• so without passing the going to a limit so without passing the limit<00:34:17.960> and<00:34:
• 19.440> of<00:34:19.679> un limit and the limit is 10% of un limit and the limit is 10%
• <00:39:35.920> the the prison wasn't ready to to spend the the prison wasn't ready to to spend
• The state law provides a limit, but it's a generous limit, I guess I will say, because we never want
• um the state state law provides a limit um the state state law provides a limit and<00:44:30.760

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Public Works and Highways committee held a capital budget orientation led by Legislative Budget Assistant Office staff, who walked members through the budget materials, the capital budget process, and the committee’s compare sheet. The presentation explained that agencies begin developing capital requests nearly a year in advance, submit them by May 1, and that the governor’s recommended capital budget is a reduced version of the much larger agency wish list. Members were told the agencies initially requested about $1.1 billion in projects, the catalog was trimmed to just over $400 million in general fund projects, and the governor’s recommendation in the pink book totals about $143 million in general fund capital appropriations. The committee also reviewed the prior capital budget and related statutes and committee procedures. Several specific projects drew discussion. The Department of Education’s CTE projects were explained as having been shifted into the operating budget in the prior cycle and now returning to the capital budget recommendation; members asked whether there was a backup CTE project and whether local approval had been secured for the named project. The Cannon Mountain tramway request was highlighted as a $20 million recommendation, with the presenter explaining that an earlier $18 million appropriation would be lapsed back to the general fund to help balance the budget. The Department of Corrections’ new prison project was also discussed; members were told the state has already appropriated $50 million for planning and site evaluation, but the governor’s current capital budget does not include a new prison construction appropriation because the project is not yet ready for that phase and may need to be funded differently, possibly through a separate, staggered appropriation. State Treasurer Monica Mezzapelli then presented on debt affordability and the state’s borrowing capacity. She said the state’s credit position has improved, with the debt-to-revenue ratio falling from 8.2% in 2015 to 3.8% in 2024, and explained that RSA 6-C limits debt authorization to 10% of unrestricted prior-year revenue. She noted that the Treasury’s planning assumes $60 million in annual bond issuance, with the prison-related $40 million now expected to be issued in 2026 rather than 2025 because the project is not ready to spend the funds. She said the state can still borrow more, but additional debt service must be paid from operating funds, and recommended keeping capital bonding in the $120 million to $130 million range to preserve affordability and the state’s credit rating. Members asked for clarification on the CTE funding shift, the prison schedule, and the meaning of the large agency request totals. The chair and treasurer discussed the governor’s $143 million recommendation versus the committee’s usual target range, and the treasurer said $130 million would be more comfortable than $140 million, with $135 million described as a possible compromise. No formal votes or committee actions were taken in the portion provided; the meeting was informational and ended with the presenters offering to answer follow-up questions as agencies come before the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Income limits vary based on a person's basis of eligibility.
• spending.
• So, in terms of spending, that's where the largest amount of dollars go.
• The AG's office only has a limited number of prosecutors, and OIG has a limited number of investigators
• I heard about the amount of minutes county. workers spend.