Transcript Highlights:

• It provides more flexibility to the Legislature to have your input on it.
• The Legislature and the administration can always exceed that and put more in.
• The Legislature and the administration can always exceed that and put more in.
• And then $250 million is allocated in SB 840 by the legislature last year.
• How should the Legislature think about prioritizing investments in Medi-Cal programs?

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard opening remarks on the Governor’s 2026-27 budget, which the chair described as roughly balanced in the budget year but still facing large out-year structural deficits. The vice chair criticized the revenue assumptions as overly optimistic and stressed the need to review recent program expansions and address the state’s $20 billion federal unemployment insurance debt. The Department of Finance said the budget is a “workload” plan with about $350 billion in total spending, $23 billion in reserves, a projected $2.9 billion budget-year deficit, and out-year gaps above $20 billion, while the LAO warned of downside revenue risk tied to stock market volatility and urged earlier action on the structural deficit rather than waiting for May. Finance and the LAO discussed major budget components, including Proposition 98 funding, higher education base increases for UC and CSU, climate and wildfire spending, a new ZEV incentive, child care COLAs, and tax proposals involving marketplace facilitators, renewable aviation fuel, and an extension of the California Competes tax credit. Members raised concerns about proposed Medi-Cal and CalFresh changes tied to federal HR1 impacts, the MCO tax extension, hospital finances, county costs, and the decision not to backfill all federal funding losses. Finance said the administration is not in a position to replace all lost federal funds, but wants to work with the Legislature on priorities and timing before the May Revision. Several senators used the hearing to preview subcommittee priorities and request more detail on spending growth, reserves, and program cuts. Topics included homelessness funding, Care Court throughput, wildfire and climate investments, AB 617, data centers, the judicial branch’s facilities backlog, displaced workers, transit funding, and preparations for the 2028 Olympics and Paralympics. No budget action or vote was taken at this hearing; the committee mainly received presentations and member questions, with public comment scheduled later.

Transcript Highlights:

• The office operates independently of the legislature and independent of the Joint Legislative Audit and
• The office operates independently of the legislature and independent of the Joint Legislative Audit and
• The legislature then appropriates educational funding and informs OSPI of the biennium amount related
• over four years, nothing is guaranteed in the Legislature when it comes to funding.
• So does that mean we should, as a Legislature, legislators who are involved in...

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee subcommittee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on the accuracy and reliability of OSPI’s school apportionment system. Auditors said the system, which calculates and distributes K-12 funding using multiple feeder systems and a core apportionment engine, is outdated, unstable, inefficient, and at high risk of failure. They reported weak controls over data input, documentation, oversight, and staffing, and said OSPI relies heavily on manual workarounds, a few knowledgeable staff, and vendor support. In limited testing of three districts, the auditors found the system calculated funding correctly for the 2023-24 school year, but they identified nine small input discrepancies tied to differences between budget materials and state law, which they said could compound into larger dollar amounts. The auditors recommended replacing or modernizing the system and noted that delays in doing so prolong risk. OSPI largely agreed that the current platform needs replacement and said it has been working toward a new system for years. Agency officials clarified that the Legislature requested a feasibility study in 2022, that the study found the system at risk of catastrophic failure, and that funding for a replacement is now in the state IT pool subject to OCIO/OFM gate reviews. OSPI disputed the audit’s characterization of the rounding and budget-law discrepancies, saying the issue was an agency rule and implementation choice, not an error that caused under- or over-allocation. Officials also said the current system is too old to easily absorb future formula changes, but that the planned replacement should be flexible enough to handle a new funding model if the Legislature adopts one. Committee members asked about the amount and timing of the $16 million project funding, whether smaller districts face greater risk, how many times data is entered, and whether the funding formula should be simplified. Auditors and OSPI both emphasized that formula simplification is a policy question for the Legislature, not the audit. Public testimony came from one online witness, who urged full implementation of the audit recommendations and modernization of the system. The subcommittee took no formal vote and adjourned after the presentations and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• And a report is due to the legislature by January 9th of next year.
• I know the nature of the legislature. Thank you. Any other questions for Melinda or Michael?
• or studies that have been mandated by the legislature.
• In 2019, the legislature passed...
• The Washington State Investment Board needs clarity from the state legislature.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy opened its 2025 interim with roll call, approval of the prior minutes, and a brief administrative update on meeting procedures, new members, and a planned change to hold officer elections in June rather than immediately. Staff then presented a high-level recap of the 2025 legislative session, focusing on pension-related bills affecting Plans 1, 2, and 3, including the failed Plans 1 COLA and month-of-death bills, enacted changes on retire/rehire rules, state actuary appointments, service credit purchases, excess compensation, and a budget proviso directing study of proposed LEOFF 1 merger/termination concepts. Staff also highlighted ESSB 5357, which changes funding policy and the assumed rate of return, and noted that a deeper briefing on that complex bill may be needed. The committee then received an interim kickoff presentation explaining the SCPP’s role, membership, meeting structure, public participation, and the typical process for studying issues. Staff reviewed the draft interim work plan, which will be shaped by statutory studies, annual agency reports, legislative outcomes, stakeholder requests, and committee goals. Key upcoming work includes the mandated study of LEOFF 1 merger and termination concepts, the state actuary’s odd-year economic assumption recommendations, annual updates from DRS, OSA, the LEOFF 2 Board, and the State Investment Board, and other recurring reports such as the DRS benchmarking study and actuarial valuation materials. Members also discussed the importance of understanding asset smoothing and long-term funding impacts, and staff said updated contribution projections will be available later in the fall. During public comment, several speakers urged the committee and the State Investment Board to address climate-related financial risk and divest from fossil fuels, arguing that current coal, oil, and gas holdings are too large and that existing screening methods undercount exposure. One commenter also asked the committee to consider climate risk in the upcoming long-term economic assumptions study. Another public commenter, representing school retirees and administrators, urged continued study of COLA proposals and asked the committee to review the recently enacted funding bill and a separate bill related to COLA financing. The meeting concluded with a short break and adjournment of the full committee portion before the executive committee session.

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislature may want to consider additional oversight on some of these proposals.
• We urge the legislature to act where the mayor vision has been silent.
• And they should have no problem coming before the legislature and explaining that.
• where the legislature would like to reduce costs?
• so we'll get back to the legislature if we find anything to report on.

Transcript Highlights:

• That bond did initiate with the Legislature.
• That bond did initiate with the legislature.
• We urge you and the Legislature to ensure that In AB 617, we urge you and the Legislature to ensure that
• The Legislature stepped up, provided H-SP funding.
• The legislature stepped up, provided H-SP funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> on um from time to time the legislature on um from time to time the legislature um<00:15:49.319>
• The Perpich Center was authorized by the legislature in 1985.
• The Perpich Center reports every January to the legislature.
• </c> makes decisions um but the legislature makes decisions um but the legislature has<00:53:31.680><
• </c> violence um another uh the legislature violence um another uh the legislature has<00:53:41.559><

Committee: House Education Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• And those, the Legislature does not have control over.
• There are great things that the Legislature has done.
• I do, though, also want to thank the legislature. has led to us being successful.
• There are great things that the legislature has done.
• The Legislature creates a new program, and a new report goes along with it.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on coherence in California’s education planning and reporting systems, especially the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and related grant plans. Committee chairs and members described widespread frustration with duplicative, lengthy, and sometimes conflicting reporting requirements, while emphasizing that the goal was not to reduce accountability but to make planning more useful, stable, and student-centered. State Superintendent Tony Thurmond also previewed the Governor’s education budget priorities, including expanded learning, community schools, universal transitional kindergarten, literacy supports, and concerns about the proposed Prop. 98 deferral. Panelists from the State Board of Education, Fresno County Superintendent of Schools, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office said the LCAP was intended to balance local flexibility with statewide transparency, but has become overloaded by repeated revisions and additional requirements. They argued for fewer core reporting elements, more stability over time, better alignment of planning cycles, and integrated systems that reduce duplication. Fresno County staff described a multi-year calendar and support tools that help districts manage timelines, but said these tools only ease the burden rather than solve the underlying problem. The LAO noted that some newer plans, such as expanded learning and transportation plans, are narrative-heavy and often less informative than separate reporting requirements. Local district leaders and county officials described the practical effects of the current system: staff time diverted from instruction, multiple portals and forms, audit risk aversion, and planning documents that can exceed 100 pages. Several superintendents said coherent systems work best when districts have clear priorities, stable governance, and aligned budgets, and when state requirements are predictable and tied to outcomes like literacy, attendance, and student achievement. The California Federation of Teachers added that coherence also depends on meaningful collaboration with educators, classified staff, parents, and communities. Committee members repeatedly asked whether the state should streamline reporting, create a uniform portal, or develop a more unified grant-reporting structure, and Thurmond said the department was piloting a simplified common form and was willing to work with the Legislature and districts on broader solutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• This morning, I'll give you a brief history of some relief that was provided by the legislature in previous
• Previously, the legislature dealt with catastrophic damage through specific measures addressing specific
• In terms of agricultural classification, after storms Matthew and Hermine, the legislature provided a
• The legislature also appropriated $35 million to reimburse local governments because when that refund
• And so that we will be more than happy to do that again if the Legislature so requests.

Committee: Senate Finance and Tax

Summary: The Committee on Finance and Tax met with a quorum present and heard a presentation from Lissette Kelly of the Department of Revenue’s Property Tax Oversight Office on property tax relief for catastrophic events. Kelly reviewed existing statutory relief for homestead, non-homestead, commercial, and agricultural property owners, including extended rebuild timelines, preservation of homestead exemption during rehabilitation, agricultural classification protections, and the catastrophic event refund program for residential property that becomes uninhabitable. She also explained the refund process, the roles of property appraisers and tax collectors, and prior legislative reimbursements to local governments after storms such as Ian, Nicole, and Idalia. Members asked about how portability works if a homeowner chooses not to rebuild, and Kelly said she would follow up with more detail. Senator Bernard also asked how residents learn about the refund application, and Kelly said property appraisers and tax collectors actively notify affected owners, including through mailings, FEMA and Red Cross sites, public service announcements, and outreach at community events. She said the property appraisers take the lead in promoting the program, with tax collectors also helping direct taxpayers to apply. The chair noted that staff will distribute the department’s guide to offices before hurricane season and said the committee’s next meeting, during the first week of session, will focus on property taxes more broadly. Kelly said the department would be willing to review the process further and bring suggestions if needed. No votes were taken on legislation, and the committee adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the legislature.
• Chapter 90 program is incredibly important to me and to all the members of the legislature.
• And when I first started in the legislature, it was $150 million a year.
• And when I first started in the legislature, it was $150 million a year.
• And when I first started in the legislature, it was $150 million a year.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Transportation

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 4987, the administration’s transportation bond bill centered on Chapter 90 roadway funding and related capital programs. Administration officials described the bill as a roughly $5.5 billion package that would continue $300 million per year for Chapter 90 over four years, with part of the funding distributed by the traditional formula and an additional $100 million based solely on road miles to better support rural and smaller communities. They also highlighted authorizations for municipal pavement work, Shared Streets and Spaces grants, accelerated bridge and pavement repairs, MBTA rail modernization and reliability, housing-related transportation improvements, and a new DCR-focused PRISM program for parkways and related infrastructure. Officials emphasized that the bill is financed through the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues, and said it would help municipalities plan more predictably, speed project delivery, and support housing, safety, and climate goals. Committee members and witnesses discussed the bill’s broader scope beyond traditional Chapter 90, especially the $200 million for transportation projects that support housing development and the $200 million for MBTA modernization and rail reliability. Members asked about the rationale for a four-year authorization amid fiscal uncertainty, federal funding volatility, and the status of commuter rail electrification. Administration officials responded that the capital authorization is backed by dedicated transportation revenues rather than the operating budget, and said multi-year certainty helps cities and towns make better long-term repair decisions. They also said the MBTA’s rail modernization funds would support locomotive procurements, including battery-electric and Tier 4 diesel locomotives, as part of a longer-term regional rail and electrification strategy. Municipal officials and regional advocates strongly supported the bill. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, along with town and city officials from Sherborn, Conway, and Yarmouth, said the increased Chapter 90 funding and road-mile-based distribution are especially important for small and rural communities with limited local revenue capacity, and that multi-year funding would let them bundle projects, bid at better prices, and address backlogs more proactively. A Better City and MAPC also supported the bill but urged the committee to treat it like a traditional bond bill by adding policy provisions and considering new transportation revenue tools, such as TNC fee changes, road pricing, parking taxes, and other mechanisms. The committee took no vote during the hearing and adjourned after testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• This program was started by the **88th Legislature**.
• The **87th Legislature** allocated additional funding, while the **88th Legislature** performed three
• The **87th Legislature** allocated additional funding, while the **88th Legislature** performed three
• First of all is the **Meta** settlement, which we're asking the legislature to pass funding for.
• So what I've seen is, because of the efforts of this legislature, that it has kind of stabilized.

Bills: SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, Attorney General, budget recommendations, funding swaps, salary increases, Landowner's Compensation Program, public testimony, law enforcement

Summary: The meeting focused on the budget recommendations for the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), where key issues included the proposed decrease of $163.9 million for the 2024-25 biennium and various methodology swaps for funding. Attorney General Paxton discussed ongoing litigation expenditures and emphasized the need for continued investments in agency staffing to address rising demands within law enforcement. Notably, he requested a 6% salary increase for 2026 and 2027 to retain talented personnel amidst competitive job markets. Public testimony highlighted community awareness challenges regarding the Landowner's Compensation Program, indicating a need for enhanced outreach efforts.

Transcript Highlights:

• The governor and the legislature.
• And to date, of course, the legislature has not been provided with it.
• I know over the last year we've produced a couple of such reports to the legislature.
• There should be the biggest concern that should be looked at by the Legislature.
• The Legislature passed AB 2432, authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so these are the issues that the Legislature has to now grapple with.
• And to date, of course, the Legislature has not been provided with it.
• There should be the biggest concern that should be looked at by the Legislature.
• The Legislature passed AB 2432, authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel.
• Legislature passed AB 2432, authored by Assembly Member Jesse Gabriel.

Summary: The subcommittee met to hear budget-related updates from the Judicial Branch and the Office of Emergency Services, with no votes taken. The Judicial Council supported the Governor’s proposed budget, highlighting $70 million for increased trial court operating costs, additional funding for court-appointed counsel, Court of Appeal case processing, and courthouse construction and facilities. Trial court representatives emphasized staffing retention problems, especially in counties like San Bernardino, and said stable funding is needed to avoid delays and maintain access to justice. Members also discussed the branch’s remote proceedings program, which has been used in more than 6 million hearings statewide since 2022 and was described as especially important in rural areas and for vulnerable litigants; several members urged making the authority permanent rather than extending it temporarily. A major portion of the hearing focused on Proposition 36 implementation. Finance said the Governor’s budget maintains the $130 million provided in the 2025 Budget Act for court workload and pretrial services, but adds no new Prop. 36 court funding. Judicial Council staff reported nearly 35,000 felony Prop. 36 filings in 2025, with most cases still pending and only a small share of treatment-mandated cases already dismissed after treatment. Witnesses said courts are using the funds for staffing, coordinators, clerks, and treatment-court operations, but that workload varies widely by county and that data collection is limited because courts report aggregate information rather than case-level outcomes. The LAO raised a technical concern about the Department of Finance’s Prop. 47 savings estimate and recommended revising the methodology at May Revision. The committee also reviewed the Orange Central Justice Center facility modification project, where the Judicial Council explained that hidden construction deficiencies and fire-life-safety issues caused costs to rise substantially after demolition began. The LAO said the project itself was supportable but recommended that the Legislature set an ongoing funding level for court facilities, require a long-term facilities plan, and consider more oversight of facility modification projects. Finance said it continues to fund courthouse projects individually and through the State Public Works Board, while acknowledging project delays and cost increases. Finally, Cal OES and advocates discussed victim services funding. Cal OES said it administers about $315 million annually for victim service programs, including VOCA-funded services, but federal VOCA allocations have fluctuated sharply and the state has used one-time General Fund backfills to maintain services. Trauma recovery center advocates warned that an 85% reduction in funding would sharply reduce services for survivors of violent crime, while human trafficking advocates urged reauthorization of the Human Trafficking Victim Assistance Program before funding reverts to pre-pandemic levels in July 2026. Members asked about federal and state funding stability, referral pathways, and the long-term value of these programs in preventing worse outcomes and reducing public costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 15 by Myers here in the legislature. development plans permits and similar documents in the inspection
• HCR 26 by Metcalfe proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to make a permit
• H.R. 36 by Bello Coppin, proposing a constitution amendment to authorize the legislature.
• amendment to authorize the legislature.
• Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize the Legislature...

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> >> So this legislature from 2017 until what we've done in the last current legislature, who has
• </c> 18, 19, 20, 21 cuz the legislature 18, 19, 20, 21 cuz the legislature didn't<00:24:37.120><c> do
• </c><00:25:43.600><c> I</c> have been a previous legislature. I have been a previous legislature.
• The legislature, the Mississippi legislature, in 1952 started the PERS retirement system.
• , the Mississippi The legislature, the Mississippi legislature legislature legislature in<01:08:53.679

Committee: Joint Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• , ultimately passing the legislature and being enacted in 2026.
• , ultimately passing the legislature and being enacted in 2026.
• Those studies are due to be reported back to the legislature by the end of 2028.
• I guess what I'm asking is, were there discussions from the legislature?
• So I'm not sure if they can answer what the legislature intended to do.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• So now the Legislature has funded the additional rehab positions for that facility.
• The Legislature has funded free messaging for the incarcerated.
• The Legislature has funded free messaging for the incarcerated.
• So we recommend the Legislature direct the department to report in budget hearings on what steps it's
• To gather information, the Legislature can ask questions, for example, to better understand the role

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislature didn't like it. They put something on the ballot to overturn it.
• Twice, thank you, after the legislature did the same thing.
• The legislature and the secretary of state already have that primary authority.
• The legislature drafts the laws. We do. Yes, but you must do so in compliance. I'm sorry?
• It's the job of the legislature and the Secretary of State to do that, not the courts.

Committees: House Elections , House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Transcript Highlights:

• What's fair, what's not fair, is we created the language in the legislature.
• over the H.J.R.s or ballot measures debated in the legislature over the last couple of years.
• The legislature and the general and the secretary of state already have that primary authority.
• The legislature drafts the laws. Oh, we do. Yes, but you must do so in compliance. I'm sorry?
• It's the job of the legislature and the Secretary of State to do that, not the courts.

Committee: House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 3146, sponsored by Rep. John Simmons, which would expand legislatively written ballot summary statements from 50 to 100 words and create a revised process for court challenges to ballot language. Simmons said the bill is essentially the same as last year’s Senate Bill 22, minus the section the Supreme Court struck down, and argued it would preserve the General Assembly’s role while allowing the Secretary of State and courts to work through objections to ballot summaries. Supporters said the longer summary would better inform voters and that the back-and-forth process had worked in the recent Amendment 3 litigation. Members raised concerns that the bill would encourage misleading or argumentative ballot language, create extra procedural steps, and potentially let the clock run out before challenges are fully resolved. Rep. Woods and others argued the courts are needed to prevent “ballot candy” and dishonest summaries, while supporters countered that the legislature and Secretary of State should have primary authority and that courts should not act as a “super legislature.” The sponsor and supporters also pointed to the recent Amendment 3 process as evidence that the revised procedure can work and produce agreed-upon language. Testimony was split. Campaign Life Missouri, Missouri Right to Life, and a representative from the Secretary of State’s office testified in favor, emphasizing transparency, voter information, and the elected status of the officials drafting ballot language. Opponents included the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, League of Women Voters, Jobs with Justice, Missouri Right to Education, and private citizens, who argued the bill is unconstitutional, undermines separation of powers, and would allow misleading language to survive by dragging out litigation. No vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• reserves to the people the power of initiative, placing citizens on equal footing with us in the legislature
• The Constitution, as we have heard discussed before, contemplates the legislature not taking action in
• The idea that the legislature does have the opportunity or the legal option to ignore the initiative,
• The fact that there's a backstop provided in the Constitution if the legislature chooses not to follow
• They might be a established by the legislature and the State Board of Education or SBE.

Bills: HB1295 , HB2007 , HB2262 , HB2636

Committee: House Education

Keywords: reading instruction, structured literacy, early literacy, dyslexia, phonics, phonological awareness, language comprehension, vocabulary, fluency, oral language, orthographic knowledge, multi-tiered system of supports, MTSS, screening assessments, intervention, reading intervention, elementary education, kindergarten, first grade, second grade

Transcript Highlights:

• So the Legislature created... So, the Legislature created the L.A.
• So the Legislature, the Legislature created the...
• Metro to provide the Legislature with a governance reform... Requires L.A.
• We would welcome the state Legislature and our L.A.
• It’s not—it's a structure that was created by the Legislature.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 220, which would require Los Angeles Metro to submit an expedited governance reform report to the Legislature in light of Measure G and the upcoming creation of a countywide elected executive. Senator Allen said the bill was intended to prompt a locally driven discussion about how Metro’s board should reflect the new county structure, not to prescribe a specific governance plan. Metro and the City of Los Angeles opposed the bill, arguing that local task forces and an ad hoc Metro committee were already studying the issue and that the bill was premature and unnecessary. Several committee members echoed local-control concerns, while others supported keeping the bill alive as a vehicle for further discussion. The bill was moved on a do-pass motion to Appropriations and ultimately recorded at 7-2, with the measure held on call for absent members. The committee then heard SB 667, the California Railway Safety Act, which would require freight railroads to install wayside detector systems at specified intervals, with different treatment for short-line railroads, and would require railroad response plans to be submitted to the CPUC. The author and labor supporters argued the bill would help prevent derailments like the East Palestine disaster by detecting overheated bearings earlier and improving crew notification and inspection protocols. Railroads and business groups opposed the bill, saying the spacing mandate and related requirements would be costly, could slow freight and passenger operations in shared corridors, and might discourage investment in short-line infrastructure. After extensive discussion about safety, preemption, costs, and passenger rail impacts, the committee passed the bill to Appropriations on a 7-2 vote, with the measure also held on call. Finally, the committee took up ACR 71, which designates a portion of State Route 101 in Santa Clara County as the Little Saigon Freeway. The author and numerous supporters described the designation as a recognition of San Jose’s Vietnamese American community, its refugee history, and the cultural and commercial importance of Little Saigon. There was no opposition testimony. Members spoke in support, including comments about the connection between the San Jose and Orange County Vietnamese communities. The resolution was adopted and sent to Appropriations on a unanimous roll call among those present, with 10 votes recorded before the chair returned.