Transcript Highlights:

• Never mind the public health impact on the health side, but also the health cost side.
• Never mind the public health impact on the health side, but also the health cost side.
• Never mind the public health impact on the health side, but also the health cost side.
• air side.
• side.

Summary: The joint Senate and Assembly Environmental Quality/Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials informational hearing focused on the Tijuana River Valley sewage crisis, with members from both parties emphasizing that the problem is long-running, cross-border, and severe enough to require federal, state, local, and binational action. Opening remarks described the crisis as an environmental and public health emergency affecting beaches, air and water quality, marine life, tourism, and residents’ quality of life in South Bay communities. Assembly Member Boerner and Senator Jones both stressed the need for continued funding and cooperation, while Senator Padilla said the issue is underappreciated because of where it occurs but has major public health, economic, and educational consequences. Congressman Mike Levin’s office reported more than $650 million in federal funding secured for infrastructure and cleanup, along with federal legislation and requests for CDC and EPA involvement. Supervisor Paloma Aguirre gave a detailed overview of county efforts and the scope of the crisis, citing decades of sewage flows from Tijuana, nearly four years of beach closures, and the county’s expanded water-quality monitoring. She said the county is pursuing warning signs, an air purifier distribution program, an epidemiological study, soil testing, an economic impact study, and a feasibility analysis to remove the “hot spot” near Saturn Boulevard, which she described as a key local source of airborne pollution. She also pointed to binational funding for treatment plant upgrades and said the county is seeking state support, including from Proposition 4 cross-border river funds, to expand relief and mitigation efforts. Scripps researchers Dr. Sarah Giddings and Dr. Kimberly Prather presented scientific findings on water and air transport. Giddings described a high-resolution forecast model that predicts wastewater movement and beach closure risk up to five days ahead, using real-time observations and showing about 72% accuracy against county measurements. Prather said the main exposure route is through air, not just water, and reported that turbulence at the river hot spot aerosolizes pollutants, with hydrogen sulfide and other gases spiking at night and dropping when river flow is diverted. She said the team has identified thousands of gases and linked measurements closely to odor complaints, while also noting that air purifiers can reduce indoor exposure but are not a permanent solution. Dr. Paula Stigler Granados added that community health surveys and CDC assessments show widespread symptoms, sleep disruption, anxiety, and daily life impacts, especially during nighttime odor events. She said her team has found more than 900 contaminants in river water and 106 chemicals uniquely associated with the Saturn Boulevard hot spot, with passive air sampling showing similar chemical fingerprints in nearby homes. The panel discussion ended with questions about standards and accountability, and witnesses and legislators agreed that the crisis requires updated air-quality standards, more health research, and continued coordination to reduce exposure and address the source of pollution.

Transcript Highlights:

• Excuse me, the inpatient side, right? 5.8 1% and on the outpatient side for hospital were at work.
• Now there's really no impact of Florida.
• So there's really no impact of Florida here.
• They only knowledge ability impact, I think is on the on the eligibility side of things for the what
• And I will take the medical side as well as this.

Transcript Highlights:

• And are they taxed on the natural gas production side or are they taxed on the oil side? Mr.
• So incredible impact on reducing the size of the footprint, but mostly the impact on making tier two,
• And so that's a lot of that minus 51 impact.
• and one on the public side.
• the south side of the property.

Summary: The Budget Section Leadership Division met with a quorum present and approved the March 18 minutes. The committee first heard an update from the Petroleum Council on oil and gas activity, which described North Dakota production as holding steady around 1.1 to 1.2 million barrels per day despite lower prices and market volatility. The presentation emphasized that efficiency gains, longer laterals, and improved completion technology are allowing operators to sustain output while activity shifts north in the Bakken. Members asked about gas taxation, natural gas liquids, flaring, and enhanced oil recovery; the witness said gas is taxed by volume, most liquids are handled through oil lines or gas processing, and the state’s EOR pilot projects and new gas infrastructure are intended to help hold production flat and expand future recovery. The committee then received a presentation from the Tax Department on the federal “big beautiful bill” and its effect on North Dakota income tax collections. The department explained that most of the federal changes were extensions of existing Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions, but several items — including the larger standard deduction, senior deduction, tip and overtime exclusions, auto loan interest deduction, and business expensing changes — affect state collections. Revised estimates showed a smaller-than-expected impact on individual income tax, with the department suggesting a net cash effect in the range of roughly $30 million to $35 million when business and individual effects are combined, plus a possible one-time distortion from large oil-field transactions in fiscal year 2025. Members asked which provisions apply to standard versus itemized returns, and the department clarified that most of the individual provisions apply broadly, while the SALT-related item is itemizer-specific. OMB then reported on major capital projects and facility funding. Updates included Capitol grounds improvements such as 18th-floor renovations, wayfinding, augmented reality displays for the Rough Rider Hall of Fame, tree management and lighting studies, and restroom and parking reconfiguration in the tower. OMB also described security upgrades at the governor’s residence, where human remains were discovered on site and are being handled with historical and legal review. The state hospital project in Jamestown remains on schedule for substantial completion in winter 2027 and opening in spring 2028, with costs currently estimated a little over $292 million and a line of credit expected to be drawn in April 2027. The North Central State Office Building in Minot is under construction, with a $5.6 million line of credit already accessed. OMB also reported on the State Facility Maintenance Fund, noting about $1.1 million spent so far on projects such as the Liberty Memorial Building roof and foundation work, Capitol window replacement, boiler replacement, and kitchen remodeling. Finally, Legislative Council staff reviewed the interim compliance report on legislative intent and state trust funds. The report highlighted the status of multiple lines of credit, including those for the state hospital and Minot office building, and noted that the executive budget will likely need to include repayment planning for about $350 million of expected outstanding balances. Other updates included the Bank of North Dakota profit transfer schedule, litigation pool spending, the new Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship, the Missouri River Correctional Center planning effort, HHS items such as FMAP and child care assistance, Job Service’s unemployment insurance modernization project, and DPI school aid turnback estimates. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• These conditions also impact soil moisture and other factors that impact water supply and demand.
• We think of drought impacts in three categories. First, in terms of fish and ecosystem impacts.
• parse out drought impacts versus other impacts on individual well systems.
• We think of drought impacts in three categories. First, in terms of fish and ecosystem impacts.
• parse out drought impacts versus other impacts on individual well systems.

Summary: The committee heard first from Deputy State Climatologist Karen Bumbacco, who reviewed the weather and snowpack conditions that contributed to Washington’s 2025 drought. She said the state had a very warm and dry water year, with April through September ranking among the warmest and driest periods on record, and that three straight years of below-normal snowpack and precipitation had compounded drought impacts, especially in the Yakima Basin. She also explained that a weak La Niña could bring a wetter-than-normal winter, though temperature forecasts were less certain, and noted that long-term climate projections point to continued snowpack decline and earlier runoff timing. Department of Ecology staff Rea Burns and Caroline Melor then described the state’s drought declaration process and response. They said Washington’s statutory drought threshold is less than 75% of normal water supply plus a hardship finding, and that Ecology extended the Yakima drought declaration in April and expanded it statewide in June. They discussed reliance on federal monitoring data and staffing at NRCS, USGS, Reclamation, and NOAA, and said federal staffing and funding instability has created concerns for snowpack and water data. They also reviewed drought response funding, noting that grants have supported projects in the Yakima and Dungeness basins and that the drought emergency account still has a balance available for current needs. Burns gave a detailed update on the Yakima Basin, saying it experienced unprecedented conditions this year, including nearly empty reservoirs, curtailment orders sent to about 1,500 water users, and the first time even the most senior 1855 surface water rights were turned off. She said widespread compliance occurred, though the process exposed areas for improvement, especially coordination with federal partners. Committee members asked about the long-term basis for climate projections, the 75% drought threshold, federal impacts, drought insurance, reservoir storage, and whether the state should consider more drought funding or new storage projects. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• impact analysis.
• Impacts are also divided into direct impacts, indirect impacts, and induced impacts.
• Slide 30 to show the total impact.
• Of the impact for the Spaceport.
• What are they doing on their side? Are we looking at a catastrophe on their side?

Transcript Highlights:

• But I would just argue that actually all farms continue to face the same impacts, and it could impact
• an impact.
• It's on the west side of Fresno County is the first impacts you're going to see statewide.
• I like to think on the early side.
• I like to think on the early side.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Assembly Committees on Economic Development, Growth, and Household Impact and Agriculture, held at Fresno State, focused on cost pressures in California’s food system, household affordability, and the Central Valley’s role in agriculture. Opening remarks emphasized Fresno State’s regional importance, the Central Valley’s outsized contribution to food production, and the connection between agricultural health, food security, and the broader economy. Members also noted the impact of the federal shutdown on CalFresh benefits and the state’s efforts to respond with food assistance funding and National Guard support for food banks. The first panel featured academic and policy experts who described agriculture’s economic importance in the San Joaquin Valley and the rising pressures on farms and households. Dr. Conduro highlighted agriculture’s large share of regional GDP, farm receipts, jobs, exports, and food manufacturing, while identifying water scarcity, SGMA-related land fallowing, labor shortages and rising labor costs, market volatility, invasive pests, and production cost inflation as major barriers. Caroline Danielson of PPIC said food prices remain about 30% above 2019 levels, food insecurity affects about 1.8 million California households, and nutrition programs such as CalFresh, WIC, and school meals are essential in reducing poverty, especially in the Central Valley. Susie Pryor of the Central California Small Business Development Center described technical assistance, capital access, and training for small food and farm businesses, while warning that reduced funding limits support for rural and immigrant entrepreneurs. The second panel brought testimony from a small produce business owner, a food entrepreneur, and the Fresno County Farm Bureau. They said input costs for fertilizer, fuel, irrigation, labor, land leases, and compliance have risen sharply while commodity prices have remained flat or fallen, squeezing small farms and food businesses. Panelists stressed the need for small-batch processing facilities, local supply chains, education on food manufacturing compliance, land access for small farmers, and more pathways into agriculture through trade programs, community colleges, and FFA. Ryan Jacobson said California agriculture is facing a prolonged downturn, with farm bankruptcies, weak commodity prices, export-market uncertainty, water reliability problems, and costly ag-burning rules all contributing to financial strain. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken; the hearing was informational and concluded with discussion of possible policy solutions and continued engagement with stakeholders.

Transcript Highlights:

• And are they taxed on the natural gas production side or are they taxed on the oil side? Mr.
• So small impact there. Flex spending account, so small impact there.
• and one on the public side.
• and one on the public side.
• The east side of the facility.

Summary: The Budget Section Leadership Division met with a quorum and approved the March 18 minutes before hearing a series of informational updates. The Petroleum Council reported that North Dakota oil production is expected to remain relatively flat at just under 1.2 million barrels per day, with activity shifting northward in the Bakken as technology improves and three- and four-mile laterals boost well performance. The presentation also discussed oil and gas prices, gas taxation, flaring concerns, the importance of pipelines and other linear infrastructure, and enhanced oil recovery pilot projects supported by state and federal funding. Members asked questions about gas production taxes, natural gas liquids, and the outlook for drilling rigs and future production. The Office of State Tax Commissioner then reviewed the federal “big beautiful bill” and its estimated effect on North Dakota individual and business income tax collections. Staff explained that most of the individual income tax impact comes from the permanent increase in the standard deduction, while temporary provisions such as senior deductions, tip and overtime exclusions, and auto loan interest deductions have smaller or limited-term effects. They also noted that business tax changes, especially depreciation and expensing provisions, create a larger near-term cash impact, and that some FY25 collections likely reflected one-time oil field transactions that may have inflated the baseline used in earlier estimates. OMB provided updates on major capital projects and facility funding. For Capitol grounds improvements, officials described plans for 18th-floor renovations, wayfinding upgrades, public seating, lighting, tree management, and possible restroom and lobby reconfiguration, while also noting the governor’s residence security project and the discovery of human remains on the Capitol grounds. OMB and its consultants also reported on the state facility maintenance fund, including window replacement, boiler work, roof and foundation repairs, and a new facility conditions assessment covering more state buildings. Updates were also given on the new state hospital in Jamestown, the Minot state office building, and the use of federal state fiscal recovery funds, including possible future reallocations to the Department of Corrections. Finally, Legislative Council staff summarized the interim compliance report on legislative intent and trust fund activity, highlighting the status of lines of credit, Bank of North Dakota profit transfers, the statewide litigation pool, the new Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship, corrections planning, HHS program updates, and a likely future general fund request for the unemployment insurance modernization project. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes; the meeting was primarily informational, with members asking clarifying questions throughout.

Transcript Highlights:

• We hope to have submitted to the Coast Guard a navigational impact report that talks about the impacted
• , moving to the Washington side.
• , moving to the Washington side.
• So we have gone through the Washington side, and that Stip Amendment has been approved. on Oregon side
• On my side, it's, On my side, it's going to be Patrick, and Patrick Brennan is on our side, and our senators

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:

• So I'm going into the equity side of it and the access side of the conversation.
• So we might not get the economic benefit on the plus side, but we would on the savings side.
• of conservatism, to err on the side of overestimating ILUC impacts. into a fuel and bring it to market
• of conservatism, to err on the side of overestimating ILUC impacts.
• To err on the side of conservatism, to err on the side of overestimating ILUC impacts, because if you

Summary: The hearing was a select committee discussion on the transportation costs and impacts of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with opening remarks from the co-chairs and members emphasizing affordability, climate goals, and the need to explain the program’s benefits to the public. The first panel from CARB and the California Energy Commission described how LCFS works as a market-based, declining carbon-intensity program that rewards lower-carbon fuels, supports zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and is intended to reduce greenhouse gases and local air pollution. They argued the program has driven billions in private investment, increased alternative fuel use, and that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of retail gasoline prices, which they said are dominated by crude oil, refining, and distribution costs. Members questioned the panel on the gap between the regulatory target and actual carbon-intensity performance, the role of credit banking, which fuels are generating the most credits, how the 2025 amendments affected the program, and whether LCFS credits are truly additional. CARB explained that banking helps cost-effectiveness and investment certainty, that ethanol, renewable diesel, and biodiesel currently provide the largest volumes while electricity is expected to grow, and that the updated targets were informed by the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goals and the 2030 scoping plan. The Energy Commission said its data show environmental programs add some cost to gasoline but do not drive price volatility, which is mainly tied to crude oil and refinery margins. The second panel, featuring academic and research experts, focused on program design, out-of-state credit generation, and broader economic effects. Speakers said LCFS is successful because it ties incentives to emissions benefit, uses life-cycle analysis, and allows flexible compliance that lowers costs compared with more direct regulation. They also said the program’s benefits generally outweigh costs, that it can reduce air pollution disparities and support equity, but that some issues—especially indirect land use change, additionality, and older program assumptions—need more research and may warrant future rulemaking. One researcher noted that while LCFS likely raises gasoline prices somewhat, the effect is uncertain by design and usually smaller than normal market fluctuations, and another warned that limiting credit generation too narrowly could create legal and efficiency problems.

Transcript Highlights:

• The commitment on our side and on the provider's side is that we offer an end incentive for them from
• So there's two sides of it.
• So there's two sides of it.
• I think not just the CDA side of it, but also with our licensing side of it, those in-person tests have
• I think not just the CDA side of it, but also with our licensing side of it, those in-person tests have

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met with a quorum and focused on School Readiness, specifically the new provider reimbursement rates and the School Readiness Plus program. The chair gave an overview of how School Readiness is funded and administered, noting that the Legislature now sets county-based reimbursement rates using market and cost data, and that School Readiness Plus was created to help families who would otherwise fall off the subsidy “cliff” at 85% of state median income by extending assistance up to 100% of state median income. Panelists from the Children’s Forum, the Association of Early Learning Coalitions, and the Division of Early Learning described the programs as major workforce and family-support tools that help parents stay employed and help providers recruit and retain qualified staff. Testimony emphasized that higher reimbursement rates increase parental choice, help providers cover rising child care costs, and support better staffing and lower turnover. The panel also said School Readiness Plus is easing the pressure on families to turn down raises or promotions for fear of losing child care assistance, though uptake is still early because the program only began in late 2024 and is only available to current School Readiness families at redetermination. The Division of Early Learning reported about 275 children enrolled in School Readiness Plus as of March 10, with expenditures of about $161,420 through January 2025, and said participation is increasing. Members asked about the federal-state funding split, wait lists, reverted funds, coalition accountability, county-based rate differences, and whether the entrance eligibility threshold should be raised or shifted to state median income. The panel said roughly 70% of School Readiness funding is federal, about 4% has typically reverted in recent years, and the wait list is around 12,000 children, with reasons including income ineligibility, lack of available seats, and funding limits. They argued that raising the entrance threshold would expand access but would require additional funding, and they also discussed the need to reduce workforce barriers such as in-person testing and training requirements. The meeting ended with no formal action beyond the presentation and member discussion, and the subcommittee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's what's on the left side of the chart.
• and how they would impact county government.
• I'm looking at the page four, and as was noted, these impacts would impact all of us. all of our districts
• That was a decision made in California that's having a devastating impact. impact right now on our classrooms
• Also, we know that what impacts California will impact the rest of our nation.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It was very impactful.
• Does it have an impact or no impact? And if there is an impact, how great is that impact?
• The other part of my question is, I didn't see an impact to PERS in the administration side either.
• The other part of my question is, is I didn't see an impact to PERS in the administration side either
• I didn't see an impact to PERS in the administration side either.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And are they taxed on the natural gas production side, or are they taxed on the oil side? Mr.
• So incredible impact on reducing the size of the footprint, but mostly the impact on making tier two,
• So small impact there.
• And so that's a lot of that minus 51 impact.
• and one on the public side.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Budget Section Leadership Division met with a quorum and approved the March 18 minutes. The committee first heard an update from the Petroleum Council on oil and gas activity in North Dakota. Ron Ness said production is expected to remain relatively flat at just under 1.2 million barrels per day, with efficiency gains and longer laterals helping offset lower rig counts. He discussed oil and gas prices, gas taxation, flaring concerns, northward movement of drilling activity, and the importance of new infrastructure and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) pilots. Members asked about gas taxation, natural gas liquids, pipeline impacts, and the outlook for Continental and other operators. Ness said the industry is likely to remain steady rather than see a major ramp-up or decline. Matt Pearl of the State Tax Department then explained the federal “big beautiful bill” and its effect on North Dakota income tax collections. He said the law extends or makes permanent several federal provisions and creates temporary deductions for seniors, tips, overtime, and auto loan interest, with the biggest state impact coming from the standard deduction increase and business tax changes. He revised earlier estimates downward, saying the net cash impact on state collections is likely in the $30 million to $35 million range after accounting for business prepayments and one-time FY25 oilfield transaction effects. Committee members asked which provisions apply to standard versus itemized returns. OMB staff gave a detailed update on major capital projects and facility funding. Topics included Capitol grounds improvements such as 18th-floor renovations, wayfinding, seating, lighting, tree management, and restroom and lobby upgrades; security work at the governor’s residence, which has been delayed by the discovery of human remains; and space reconfiguration efforts in Bismarck-Mandan to reduce leases and create shared offices and conference rooms. They also reported on the State Facility Maintenance Fund, including roof, window, boiler, and kitchen projects at state facilities, and on the state hospital project in Jamestown, which remains on budget and on schedule for substantial completion in winter 2027 and opening in spring 2028. OMB also updated the committee on the Minot North Central State Office Building, the use of federal State Fiscal Recovery Funds, and the status of legislative intent and trust fund reports, including school aid turnback, the school construction loan program, the Foundation Aid Stabilization Fund, the Legacy Fund, and the Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund. The committee ended by discussing future agenda items, including government efficiency, cash management, Bank of North Dakota lines of credit, and the rural health transformation program, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It was very impactful.
• Does it have an impact or no impact? And if there is an impact, how great is that impact?
• The other part of my question is, is I didn't see an impact to PERS in the administration side either
• The other part of my question is, is I didn't see an impact to PERS in the administration side either
• I didn't see an impact to PERS on the administration side either.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• by side.
• , how their business might be impacted.
• And also... ...how their employees are impacted, how the business might be impacted.
• , how the business might be impacted.
• There's also an impact on traffic.

Summary: The Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee met for a work session and public hearing on the Interstate 5 bridge replacement program. Program staff outlined major milestones, including the recent biological opinion, the Coast Guard’s opening of a public comment period on the Navigation Impact Report, expected decisions in early 2026 on navigational clearance and the final supplemental environmental impact statement, and a possible amended record of decision in 2026. They also discussed the Bridge Investment Program grant amendment deadline, the need for an initial finance plan, and ongoing community outreach and contractor engagement. Greg Johnson announced he was stepping down as program administrator, and Carly Francis introduced herself as interim administrator. A large portion of the meeting focused on design and cost questions. Staff said the program is studying fixed and movable spans, single- and double-deck configurations, and one versus two auxiliary lanes, with final recommendations to be made through the federal environmental process. They said the Coast Guard’s decision is central to what bridge configuration is permittable and to the timing of the updated cost estimate, which has not yet been released. Members pressed for more detail on cost drivers, potential impacts to businesses upriver, and whether the states would need to seek additional funding. Staff said they had reached agreements with four impacted river users, but the underlying evaluation materials are protected and not publicly releasable. The committee also reviewed transit-related questions. Staff explained that light rail remains part of the modified locally preferred alternative and that ridership and operations estimates are being updated using federal modeling methods. They said projected opening-day transit operations and maintenance costs have dropped from an earlier estimate of $21.8 million to about $10.3 million annually because the current model assumes lower frequency, with Oregon and Washington shares split by geography and fare recovery. Members raised concerns about TriMet’s financial stability and the need for a funding plan by fall 2027, ahead of a planned federal transit funding application in fall 2028. During public testimony, several speakers criticized the delay in releasing a new cost estimate and argued the project scope should be reduced if costs continue to rise. Testifiers from City Observatory and the Just Crossing Alliance said the project appears to be avoiding bad news, urged the committee to consider scope reductions, and questioned whether the active transportation and freeway components align with the project’s core purpose. The meeting ended with thanks to Johnson for his service and a transition to public hearing testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um the on two sides of the property.
• <00:10:09.279> by<00:10:09.600> side property looks like and side by side property
• looks like and side by side being<00:10:10.399> able<00:10:10.640> to<00:10:10.880>
• .<00:29:35.600> So, impact.
• So, impact.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Disaster Prevention and Resiliency Task Force opened its sixth meeting by approving the minutes and then taking up a presentation from University of Pikeville representatives and local leaders on an Eastern Kentucky Disaster Relief Center at Bear Mountain in Pike County. Speakers included Greg May, Rep. Ashley Tacket Laferty, Lori Worth, and Laura Damron. They described repeated flooding and other disasters in eastern Kentucky, the lack of a single prepared relief location, and the need for a centralized, elevated site that could serve as a flood and broader natural-disaster hub. The presenters said the Bear Mountain property, about 530 acres and well above flood levels, could support a multi-use facility combining disaster response functions with university and community uses. Proposed features included a command and communications center, distribution space, emergency shelter, medical and clinic support, food service, restroom facilities, RV hookups, and an indoor track/distribution building. They emphasized that the project would help avoid disrupting existing venues such as the Pikeville Expo Center and Jenny Wiley State Resort Park, while also supporting tourism and economic recovery. Committee members asked about community and emergency-management support, annual operating costs, and resilience standards such as tornado-related building codes. In response, the presenters said local stakeholders, including Appalachian Wireless, Pikeville Medical Center, Community Trust Bank, the city of Pikeville, and emergency management officials, had expressed support. They said the university planned to absorb some operating costs through multiple uses of the facility, community camps, and budgeted maintenance, and that construction documents were nearly complete with plans to begin building within months. After the presentation, the chair thanked the presenters and moved the committee into its recommendations discussion, noting the broader fiscal and humanitarian importance of disaster preparedness and resiliency and indicating that future legislation would likely follow from the task force’s work.

Transcript Highlights:

• The impacts on taxpayers vary greatly, right? The impacts on taxpayers vary greatly, right?
• think it will really meaningfully impact... ...impacts on spending decisions and resource decisions,
• Both of them will have impacts.
• And I shouldn't assume this, but Economic impacts, and impacts on other elements, as you mentioned.
• What is impacting economic growth in Massachusetts? What is impacting migration in Massachusetts?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state’s tax collection cap/62F process so it would be based on prior-year collections plus wage growth and include surtax revenue. The committee chair and House co-chair outlined the hearing process, and the first witness was Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, who testified as the committee’s subject-matter expert on both measures. He said the income tax proposal would lower taxes broadly but would reduce state revenue by about $5.4 billion when fully implemented, with an estimated $800 million hit in FY27, and he discussed possible effects on competitiveness, taxpayer savings, and public finances. On the 62F proposal, he said the revised cap would make refunds more likely, could have produced several large refunds in recent years, and would reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Committee members questioned Howgate about competitiveness, outmigration, prior tax ballot measures, spending growth, MassHealth, and the interaction between the income tax and surtax. He emphasized that taxes are only one part of the state’s overall competitiveness and that housing, public services, and other factors also matter. He also noted that the surtax is constitutionally restricted but can still support ongoing spending choices. After his testimony, the committee moved to the proponents’ panel. Proponents of both initiatives, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, the National Federation of Independent Business, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that the measures would improve affordability, help retain residents and businesses, and support job growth. They cited polling support, outmigration, small-business reinvestment, and comparisons to lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, said her model showed smaller revenue losses than critics claim and projected that the revised revenue cap would not create additional annual revenue losses while producing more regular taxpayer refunds. Committee members pressed the panel on competitiveness, prior ballot initiative implementation, and whether the measures would actually address broader affordability pressures; the hearing ended with the committee continuing to take questions from the proponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• How does that impact projected contribution rates? Starting on the left-hand side...
• Impact projected contribution rates.
• “The next series of slides I’ll go through: the impact of adopting the recommendation, the impact on
• When we talk about budget impacts, they really come from looking at the impact on contribution rates
• And to the extent that it has an impact, that impact should be a bad one. Mr.

Summary: The committee approved the July minutes and then received an informational presentation from the Office of the State Actuary on the financial condition of the state retirement systems. The actuary reported that employer contribution rates are generally declining, helped by strong investment returns and reduced funding for PERS 1 and TERS 1, while funded ratios have continued to improve; on a combined basis the plans were reported at 100% funded in 2024, with open plans above 95% and legacy plans varying by system. The presentation also reviewed projected rates and funded ratios under current assumptions, noted that pension costs are taking a smaller share of the state general fund, and discussed risks from investment volatility, policy changes, and demographic experience. Committee members asked about savings from lower rates, deferred asset smoothing, and how Washington compares with other states. The committee then considered the state actuary’s recommendation on long-term economic assumptions and adopted all four recommendations by roll call votes: inflation at 3.0%, general salary growth at 3.5%, membership growth for Plan 1 funding at 1.0%, and investment rate of return at 7.25%. The actuaries explained that the inflation and salary growth increases were driven largely by higher long-term inflation expectations, while the investment return recommendation matched the current statutory assumption. Members discussed the timing of the Pension Funding Council’s decision, the effect of tariffs and inflation uncertainty, and how assumption changes would affect future contribution rates and budgets, particularly for open plans. Staff then gave an update on the LEOFF 1 study, explaining the difference between being “ahead of schedule” and truly overfunded, and summarizing responses received from DRS, the State Treasurer, and the State Investment Board on the merger and restatement proposals. DRS said both bills could be administered, though the merger bill’s COLA banking provision would be challenging until its new system is ready; the Treasurer urged caution, especially about the restatement bill and the use of one-time funds; and the Investment Board said removing assets from the trust would have some transaction costs but likely small impacts. The committee discussed whether to invite additional agencies and local government groups to testify, and staff said more responses, including from Ice Miller and the State Actuary, were expected for the October meeting. Finally, the committee heard a briefing on PERS 1/TERS 1 COLA policy and related bills from the last session. Staff reviewed the committee’s prior ongoing COLA recommendation, the SCPP-endorsed bills that would have created a one-time 3% COLA followed by an ongoing COLA, the Senate merger bill, and a separate ad hoc COLA bill. Public testimony largely supported Plan 1 COLAs and stable contribution rates, while several speakers urged caution about transferring LEOFF 1 surplus assets or merging legacy plans, and others raised concerns about climate risk and the pension fund’s investments. No further committee action was taken on the COLA item during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• which has no impact on the valuation. which has no impact on the valuation.
• the road, like the impact on business owners, the impact on constituents.
• the road, like the impact on business owners, the impact on constituents.
• the road, like the impact on business owners, the impact on constituents.
• , the impact on impact on business owners, the impact on constituents.<00:27:00.799> I<00:27:01.039

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It was very impactful.
• Does it have an impact or no impact? And if there is an impact, how great is that impact?
• The other part of my question is, I didn't see an impact to PERS in the administration side either.
• I didn't see an impact to PERS in the administration side either.
• Senator Bekkedahl said it impacted or didn't impact the administration of it, but that's not what we're

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