Transcript Highlights:

• , is that a new cost?
• , is that a new cost?
• , is that a new cost?
• , is that a new cost?
• , is that a new cost?

Bills: HF3

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

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:

• analysis?
• First and foremost is the cost.
• First and foremost is the cost.
• First and foremost is the cost.
• But again, cost is a big thing. We are a small district. I am a part-time Cost is a big thing.

Summary: The hearing focused on oversight of AB 658 and the State Water Resources Control Board’s five-year temporary permits for groundwater recharge. Assembly Member Arambula and committee members discussed how the permits are intended to help capture high flows during wet periods, support SGMA implementation, and store water underground for later use. The State Water Board chair said the five-year permits have become an important tool, with seven five-year permits issued this season and over 43,000 acre-feet authorized, but noted that actual recharge depends on hydrology and that the board is open to improvements. Members and witnesses discussed several possible changes to make the program more effective: allowing a two-year delay before the five-year permit clock starts, codifying CEQA exemptions that have been used through executive order, and shifting from a public objection model to a public comment model to reduce delays. There was also discussion of water availability analyses, with some members asking whether the state could develop a broader statewide assessment to reduce consultant costs and make permitting more predictable. The board said such an effort would be large and costly, but could potentially save applicants money and improve consistency. District representatives described their experiences. Stockton East said the five-year permit was more cost-effective than repeated 180-day permits, but that the 90-20 methodology, consultant costs, and a burrowing owl survey condition made use difficult. Omaha-Hartnell Water District said its recharge work depends on simple, low-cost infrastructure and that five-year permits, CEQA reform, and lower upfront fees would help small districts. A consultant working with Scott Valley and Sierra Valley said five-year permits can work well in different basins, but local infrastructure, stakeholder coordination, streambed alteration agreements, and upstream flow constraints can limit recharge. Members also raised concerns about basin connectivity, downstream water rights, and the need to pair recharge with sustainable groundwater pumping and broader water storage planning.

Transcript Highlights:

• What is the cost to, the cost of labor to deliver those things.
• cost.
• Overwhelmingly, my biggest concern is cost and cost containment.
• Overwhelmingly, my biggest concern is cost and cost containment.
• and without that cost.

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:

• So at the start of the pilot program, there's a cost-benefit analysis done.
• Frickie, does L.C., what has to trigger L.C. to do cost-benefit analysis?
• I look at your fiscal note, not the cost-benefit analysis.
• I'm not sure I've ever reviewed the cost-benefit analysis.
• I look at your fiscal note, not the cost-benefit analysis.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The conference committee on HB 1248 met to review differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, which concerns the PERS pilot program and insurance mandate process. Rebecca Frickie, executive director of PERS, explained that the Senate version removed the House provisions repealing the insurance mandate process, kept the two-year PERS pilot intact, and preserved the requirement for a report at the end of the pilot while removing language that would have required PERS to submit a bill to expand coverage to the commercial market. Members discussed the bill’s cost-benefit analysis requirements. Frickie said the current law triggers a cost-benefit analysis at the start of the pilot and again when a bill is introduced to roll coverage out commercially, but the Senate draft would change that to only one analysis at the end of the pilot if a rollout bill is introduced. Legislative Council indicated that if the committee wants that simplified approach, additional conforming changes are needed elsewhere in the code. Senators also asked about the purpose of the initial analysis and whether it is used beyond being attached to the bill packet; Frickie said PERS relies primarily on its own actuary and was not aware of broader use. The committee discussed whether the revised process would still require legislative sponsorship for any future rollout, and Frickie confirmed that a legislator or other sponsor would need to introduce such a bill. Examples mentioned included insulin caps and breast exams as possible future pilot items. The committee agreed to request Legislative Council draft the needed language changes and planned to reconvene after receiving the updated draft; no final vote was taken and the meeting was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• A regulatory analysis was not required. A small entity regulatory analysis was completed.
• The cost of getting...
• The cost was $2,437.34.
• Analysis and assessments.
• So it's 47 pages of analysis.

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:

• It looks like more of a cost for Medicaid. It looks like more of a cost for Medicaid.
• So that has a significant impact on overtime costs.
• So that has a significant impact on overtime costs.
• On average, in previous sessions, each BDR has cost in the neighborhood of $1,400 in overtime costs.
• In previous sessions, each BDR has cost in the neighborhood of $1,400 in overtime costs to be produced

Bills: AB49, AB93, AB108, AB169, AB188, AB212, AB221, AB224, AB251, AB282, AB284, AB296, AB304, AB331, AB356, AB366, AB375, AB409, AB467, AB475, AB476, AB479, AB494, AB514, AB515, AB533, AB542, AB550, AB558, AB567, AB568, AB571, AB581, AB583, AB584, AB585, AB595, AB596, AB597, SB170, SB427, SB460, SB508

Keywords: educational personnel, teacher licensing, reciprocal licensure, provisional teaching, school counselors, school nurses, school social workers, state education standards, public employees, police officers, benefits, appropriation, law enforcement, outdoor education, recreation, grant program, environment, funding, health insurance, speech-language pathology

Transcript Highlights:

• The CEC performed a detailed analysis of this and determined that the PV mandate was cost effective.
• costs, and indirect costs.
• This analysis includes, but is not limited to, both economic costs and savings, as well as quantification
• And last question, what is the status of the vapor intrusion regulations and has there been a cost analysis
• And last question, what is the status of the vapor intrusion regulations and has there been a cost 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:

• Is there a rule that the cost-benefit analysis..."
• "Is there a rule that the cost-benefit analysis must identify what the cost is to the consumer and whether
• I asked you a question about the cost-benefit analysis, and you sort of said, in CEC's case, you don't
• That economic analysis does not identify specific cost to specific consumers, partly because there are
• I think the crude oil acquisition cost, based on the analysis we have, suggests that it's about 15 cents

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:

• If the cost-benefit analysis was not included with a measure, the committee was to request the analysis
• Just add a link with the cost-benefit analysis so that everyone has a copy of that cost-benefit analysis
• analysis or a cost is projected for the state plan specific.
• And then also a cost analysis, or a cost is projected for the state plan specifically.
• They talk about cost-benefit analysis, but I didn't really see benefit.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to review the history and current treatment of North Dakota health insurance mandates, with presentations from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, Sanford Health Plan, the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), and the Insurance Department. The discussion focused on how mandates apply differently to fully insured, self-funded, ACA, Medicaid, and PERS plans; how the state’s benchmark plan and federal essential health benefits affect coverage; and how the existing process requires cost-benefit analysis and, for certain measures, a PERS pilot period before broader application. Presenters also reviewed the long list of existing state mandates, including provider, beneficiary, and coverage requirements, and noted that many were enacted decades ago and have not been revisited despite changes in medical evidence and treatment options. Witnesses from the carriers argued that mandates should be reviewed periodically because some are outdated, can create unintended costs, and may not align with current medical guidance. Examples cited included PSA screening, off-label drug coverage, prior authorization rules, step therapy, and cost-sharing provisions for mental health and substance use treatment. They emphasized that carriers often cover services without a mandate when supported by clinical evidence, and that mandates can shift costs to employers and employees, especially in the fully insured small-group market. They also suggested possible policy improvements such as clearer mandate definitions, better transparency around cost-benefit analyses, a regular 10-year review of mandates, and more timely submission of proposals through the interim process. PERS and the Insurance Department highlighted a recurring tension over what counts as a mandate and when a measure triggers the state’s defrayal obligation under federal law. PERS described its interim committee process, the April 1 deadline for fiscal-impact proposals, and the limited pilot program used for certain measures, noting that only a few bills have gone through the full pilot process. The Insurance Department explained that it views new benefit mandates through the lens of the ACA benchmark plan and essential health benefits, distinguishing true new benefits, such as infertility coverage, from changes to existing benefits, such as telehealth or insulin cost-sharing caps. No votes were taken on policy changes; the meeting was informational, with members asking questions about costs, applicability, transparency, and whether a periodic mandate review should be established.

Transcript Highlights:

• doing for cost estimates.
• And so we calculate our O&M costs.
• , and then operating costs.
• and analysis...
• costs globally are on the rise.

Summary: The committee met jointly with the Washington-Oregon Legislative Action Committee for an update on the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement (IBR) program. Members first adopted the proposed committee rules, then received program updates from staff on environmental review, permitting, design, tribal consultation, and public engagement. Staff said the project remains in the supplemental EIS process, with a final supplemental EIS and amended record of decision expected in early 2026, which would allow construction to begin. They also described ongoing work on Coast Guard navigation clearance, Section 106 historic-property coordination, and architectural guidelines for the bridge and five-mile corridor, emphasizing that the visualizations shown were conceptual and that public and partner feedback has already influenced design considerations such as accessibility and shared-use path connections. Members raised concerns about schedule delays, rising costs, and whether the project is being designed to be functional, safe, and economical. Staff acknowledged that the timeline has slipped from earlier expectations and said the delay reflects the complexity of the environmental and federal review process, as well as the need to avoid redoing steps. They said the updated cost estimate is being prepared now that design has advanced to roughly 30 percent, and that it will account for inflation, risk factors, and both fixed-span and movable-span options. Staff estimated a movable span would add more than $400 million and said the first construction work after environmental approval would likely be preliminary freeway and retaining-wall work in late 2026, followed by the bridge procurement. The committee also received funding and tolling updates. Staff reported that major federal grants have been executed, including Mega and Bridge Investment Grant agreements, and that state STIP amendments are advancing to allow access to federal funds. The tolling team described Level 3 traffic-and-revenue work, a bi-state tolling subcommittee process, and possible toll scenarios aimed at supporting either about $1.24 billion or $1.6 billion in toll revenue. Members questioned low-income toll relief timing, truck toll rates, and the effect of tolls on freight users. Staff said low-income discounts are being analyzed for both revenue and operational feasibility, that tribal exemptions and other policy exemptions are under review, and that the commissions expect to move into public outreach on toll rates and policies in 2026, with tolling on the existing bridges currently projected to begin in spring 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• analysis of LG and what that analysis analysis of LG and what that analysis shows<00:36:24.240><
• We believe that much of the analysis and much of the infrastructure would not be stranded cost. >> So
• We believe that much of the analysis and much of the infrastructure would not be stranded cost. >> So
• We believe that much of the analysis and much of the infrastructure would not be stranded cost. >> That's
• <02:02:47.280> energy different cost like the cost of energy different cost like the cost

Bills: HB2284

Keywords: energy assistance, low-income households, electricity costs, Hawaii home energy assistance program, energy efficiency, 910, house, all

Summary: The hearing covered House Bill 2284, which would create the Hawaii Home Energy Assistance Program in the Department of Human Services to help qualifying households pay energy bills and direct the Public Utilities Commission’s public benefits fee administrator to provide information and assistance to recipients. Testimony from the Division of Consumer Advocacy, DHS, and the Public Utilities Commission was in support. A committee member asked about how the program would interact with existing TANF-related energy assistance and whether rules could be adjusted to avoid duplicative benefits; DHS said logistics would need to be worked out and that the agencies would make the rules. The committees noted the bill’s $1.5 million appropriation and moved it forward with amendments, including blanking out amounts and noting them in the committee report. Both committees voted to pass HB 2284 with amendments, with the recommendation adopted. The committee then heard House Bill 2486, relating to plug-in or balcony solar. DCCA, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission stood on prior testimony in support of the bill’s intent. Multiple advocates and organizations, including Carbon Cashback Hawaii, 350 Hawaii, Bright Saver, Sierra Club of Hawaii, and others, testified in support, arguing that plug-in solar would lower electricity bills, expand access for renters and condo residents, and reduce emissions. Several speakers urged the committee to remove or avoid registration, reporting, feed-in tariff, interconnection fee, and other requirements they said would create barriers. Bright Saver testified that the systems are safe and would not back-feed during outages. No vote was taken on HB 2486 during the excerpt. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1568, which would prohibit the importation or storage of LNG in the state and the construction of related infrastructure. State agencies including the Consumer Advocate, Hawaii State Energy Office, Public Utilities Commission, and Hawaiian Electric opposed the bill, with the Energy Office arguing LNG would perpetuate oil use on Oahu and expose the state to price volatility. Supporters included Life of the Land, Sierra Club of Hawaii, Greenpeace Hawaii, 350 Hawaii, Earthjustice, Our Hawaii, and others, who argued LNG would lock Hawaii into another fossil fuel dependency, create major infrastructure costs and safety risks, and undermine the state’s renewable energy goals. Several testifiers cited climate and affordability concerns and urged the committee to reject LNG. The excerpt ends during testimony on HB 1568, before any committee action or vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• cost proposal. cost proposal.
• um, type of analysis. um, type of analysis.
• whatever it might costs or FTE costs or whatever it might be<00:57:34.200> for<00:57:34.320><
• <00:57:38.320> that a fiscal note and do an analysis that a fiscal note and do an analysis
• type of analysis would work. type of analysis would work.

Bills: HF1234, HF3528, HF3672, HF3679, HF3680, HF1944

Keywords: payment transparency, public contracts, contractor rights, government accountability, construction payments, barbering, licensing, examinations, barber schools, public safety, certifications, Barber Examiners Board, data transparency, Legislative Budget Office, state agencies, fiscal notes, public data, standard time, federal law, time zone

Bills: HB1752, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2876, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: education, funding, school districts, state budget, performance metrics, salvage vehicles, vehicle title transfer, electronic signatures, insurance, administrative efficiency, bribery, corruption, statute of limitations, public servant, criminal justice, deafness, traffic safety, law enforcement, vehicle registration, communication

Bills: HB1752, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2876, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: education, funding, school districts, state budget, performance metrics, salvage vehicles, vehicle title transfer, electronic signatures, insurance, administrative efficiency, bribery, corruption, statute of limitations, public servant, criminal justice, deafness, traffic safety, law enforcement, vehicle registration, communication

Bills: HB1752, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2876, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: education, funding, school districts, state budget, performance metrics, salvage vehicles, vehicle title transfer, electronic signatures, insurance, administrative efficiency, bribery, corruption, statute of limitations, public servant, criminal justice, deafness, traffic safety, law enforcement, vehicle registration, communication

Bills: HB1752, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2876, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: education, funding, school districts, state budget, performance metrics, salvage vehicles, vehicle title transfer, electronic signatures, insurance, administrative efficiency, bribery, corruption, statute of limitations, public servant, criminal justice, deafness, traffic safety, law enforcement, vehicle registration, communication

Bills: HB1752, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2876, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: education, funding, school districts, state budget, performance metrics, salvage vehicles, vehicle title transfer, electronic signatures, insurance, administrative efficiency, bribery, corruption, statute of limitations, public servant, criminal justice, deafness, traffic safety, law enforcement, vehicle registration, communication

Bills: HB1752, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2876, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: education, funding, school districts, state budget, performance metrics, salvage vehicles, vehicle title transfer, electronic signatures, insurance, administrative efficiency, bribery, corruption, statute of limitations, public servant, criminal justice, deafness, traffic safety, law enforcement, vehicle registration, communication

Transcript Highlights:

• definitely a work in progress, but suffice to say I think the intent here is aligned to help reduce the cost
• definitely a work in progress, but suffice to say I think the intent here is aligned to help reduce the cost
• The intent here is aligned to help reduce the cost of housing for local folks and provide new opportunities

Bills: SB2876, SB3253, SB2125, SB2781, HB549, HB1768, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: natural hair braiding, hair braiding, braids, braider, braiding license, cosmetology, barbering, barber board, Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, registration, licensure exemption, sanitation training, health and safety, hair extensions, cornrows, twists, locks, protective hairstyles, beauty industry, occupational licensing