Transcript Highlights:

• Are there any preferences on hearing from...
• Are there any preferences on hearing from The chair asks whether there are any preferences on hearing
• Hearing none, substitute adopted. Public testimony is open now on House Bill 4236.
• Let me wrap up by saying thank you again for hearing this bill.
• Hearing none, public testimony is now closed.

Bills: HB4 , HB20

Committees: Senate Education , Senate Education K-16

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 heard a series of higher education and K-12 bills, initially without a quorum and with several measures left pending subject to the call of the chair. Early bills included HB 1868, which would direct a study on lowering the dual-credit funding threshold for public junior colleges from 15 to 9 semester credit hours; HB 2598, which would replace statutory references to “licensed specialist in school psychology” with “school psychologist”; HB 3629, which would bar registered sex offenders from serving on independent school district boards of trustees; and HB 4361, which would require the Higher Education Coordinating Board to adopt rules for timely emergency notifications at public institutions of higher education. Each received brief sponsor explanations, no opposition testimony, and was left pending. The committee also heard HB 4848, requiring public higher education systems to ensure at least one institution offers affordable competency-based bachelor’s degree programs in high-demand fields, and HB 1211, which would remove the age 25 deadline for former foster youth to use public college tuition waivers. HB 1211 drew extensive supportive testimony from Texas CASA, a former foster youth who benefited from the waiver, and a current student headed to medical school, all arguing the change would better match the realities faced by youth aging out of care. Members discussed the bill’s fiscal uncertainty and the argument that the waiver is an investment in workforce participation; the bill was left pending. Later, the committee heard HB 20, creating an Applied Sciences Pathway Program to let high school students earn certificates in targeted industries such as welding, plumbing, electrical work, manufacturing, and oil and gas while in school. Industry and workforce groups strongly supported the bill as a way to address labor shortages, while Texas 2036 raised concerns about allowing applied versions of core academic courses to substitute for traditional instruction. HB 4687, which would extend governmental immunity protections to certain campus/district charter schools and adult charter high schools, also received support from a charter-school attorney who said it would align statutes with existing case law and not expand charter rights. HB 4236, as substituted, would create a study group to examine the property value study’s effect on school finance and alternative valuation methods; it was adopted as a committee substitute and left pending. The committee also heard HB 824 on civics instruction in high school government courses and HB 2243, which would create a commission on teacher job satisfaction and retention; the latter prompted debate over removing “ethnic diversity” language from the commission’s makeup. After adopting the substitute for HB 2243 by roll call, the committee recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted.
• Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted.
• Hearing none, the motion is adopted.
• Hearing none, the motion is adopted.
• Hearing none, the motion is adopted.

Bills: SB243 , SB1586 , SB1891 , SB1959 , SB2159 , SB2568

Committee: Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• write their testimony, which is less than what you give the public for when it comes to even these hearings
• When it comes to even these hearings. So thank you. Thank you.
• </c> when it comes to uh even these hearings. when it comes to uh even these hearings.
• </c> like we have with our hearing agendas. like we have with our hearing agendas.
• This hearing is adjourned. adding a defective date of July 1st, adding a defective date of July 1st,

Committee: House Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• We are now going to open the public hearing on Senate Bill 22, and here to introduce the bill is Senator
• </c><00:03:28.920><c> my</c> committee and thank you for hearing my committee and thank you for hearing
• We'll now open the public hearing on Senate Bill 23 here to introduce the bill is Senator Long.
• on Senate Bill 23 here to hearing on Senate Bill 23 here to introduce<00:31:17.679><c> the</c><00:31
• Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing on Senate Bill 23.

Committee: Senate Children and Family Law

Transcript Highlights:

• So, let's open up the hearing for HB 171. We'll hear from the prime sponsor. Good morning.
• </c><00:19:51.039><c> shortly,</c> you will be hearing shortly, you will be hearing shortly, HB77,<00
• So the uh next bill that you're going<00:21:53.120><c> to</c><00:21:53.280><c> hear</c> going to hear
• So, we're going to close the hearing on that and we're going to open up the hearing to HB 77.
• </c> speak to at that hearing in December. speak to at that hearing in December.

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, so what I'm hearing is that no &gt;&gt; Okay.
• </c><00:50:07.520><c> reassurance</c> That concerns me is I hear reassurance That concerns me is I hear
• We went through a suppression hearing.
• We went through a suppression hearing.
• So, um, we'll like to hear from you.

Bills: SF0101

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• But didn't you hear that testimony?
• Um just in hearing that your good work.
• :51.600><c> wasn't</c><01:18:52.400><c> consulted</c> hearing her that she wasn't consulted hearing her
• Tara, can you hear<01:32:08.000><c> this?
• I want you guys to hear this and starting my testimony. Tara, can you hear this?

Bills: HB1527 , HB1823 , HB2490 , HB2223 , HB2325 , HB2104 , HB2593 , HB2592 , HB1927 , HB1553 , HB1964 , HB1918 , HB1990

Committee: House Water & Land

Summary: The committee first heard HB 1527 relating to gambling. The chair outlined hearing rules, including a two-minute limit and a warning that bills not heard would die. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support from a prosecutor, Honolulu Police Department, and Stop Predatory Gambling, all arguing that casinos and sports betting increase crime, sex trafficking, harassment of athletes, and broader social harm. No opposition testimony was presented, and the committee moved on without questions or action taken on the bill. The committee then heard HB 1823 relating to coastal zone management and HB 2490 relating to coastal resilience. For HB 1823, DLNR, the Office of Planning, and Maui County testified, with Maui County supporting the measure and its proposed amendments. For HB 2490, DLNR expressed concern about exempting a proposed Mokuji Bay pilot project from permits and regulation before a long-term plan is finalized, while the County of Maui, the Mokuji Soto Zen Mission, and the Office of Planning supported the bill as a coastal resilience pilot. The mission described severe erosion, sea-level rise impacts, and years of unsuccessful efforts to stabilize the shoreline; its consultant said the study is leaning toward nature-based and hybrid solutions. In questioning, members and DLNR discussed whether the bill should say the project “shall” or “may” be exempt, and the chair indicated the language would be adjusted to preserve DLNR discretion and to change the lead agency reference to OPSD. No vote was taken in the transcript. Finally, the committee took up HB 2223 relating to historic preservation reviews. SHPD said it stood on its written comments, while OPSD and DHHL supported the bill. DHHL argued the measure would streamline reviews, improve transparency, and help address long wait times for its projects, saying it could alleviate burden on SHPD and better serve beneficiaries. Representative Shimizu questioned whether the bill would create redundancy and expand government rather than strengthen SHPD, noting a separate staffing bill already exists. SHPD responded that DHHL is uniquely subject to 6E review and that the bill would not waive federal or state historic review requirements; the discussion also touched on possible federal-style grant support and the existing memorandum of agreement between SHPD and DHHL. The transcript ends during questioning, with no final committee action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> That's good to hear.
• That's deaf and now is it under hearing impaired or >> Deaf or hearing impaired?
• </c> &gt;&gt; deaf or hearing impaired? &gt;&gt; deaf or hearing impaired?
• Um, we did hear from him earlier. I Um, we did hear from him earlier.
• </c> that might be beneficial for us to hear? that might be beneficial for us to hear?

Summary: The commission held an organizational meeting under SB 57 to study the cost of special education, with the meeting streamed publicly at the chair’s request. Members introduced themselves, and the chair explained that the bill creates two separate pieces, one dealing with SAU structure and the other with a commission on special education costing. He outlined his background in education and special education and said the commission’s work would focus on understanding and controlling special education costs. The commission reviewed its membership requirements and noted several vacancies or unfilled appointments, including the special education advocate, two governor-appointed parent advocates, and a Department of Health and Human Services representative. The members then elected Representative Rick Ladd as chair, Representative Dick Ames as vice chair, and Representative Megan Murray as clerk. Representative Ames briefly described his legal and policy background in disability and special education work in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The chair then walked through the commission’s study topics, including referral rates by IDEA category, reasons for increases in categories such as autism and other health impairment, post-COVID referral trends, pre-referral interventions, Medicaid and 504-related costs, out-of-district placements, dispute resolution, billing practices, privacy, reimbursement, legal services, graduation rates, attendance, and adult learning. Members discussed how special education costs are distributed, noting that the state spends about $977 million annually on special education, with only part covered by state aid and the remainder largely borne by local districts. Testimony also noted that out-of-district placement costs have risen sharply since rate-setting changes around 2018, and that some categories may reflect changes in identification practices, medical factors, or broader population shifts. The commission agreed to continue reviewing the data and formulas in future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you hear me now? There you go. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes.<00:05:09.199><c> M.
• </c> are entitled to an adjudication hearing are entitled to an adjudication hearing um<00:59:25.440>
• </c> um which is a an evidentary hearing um which is a an evidentary hearing where<00:59:27.680><c> this
• Hearing none, the measures adopted.
• Hearing none, the measures reservations?

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Governor’s Message 767, the nomination of Kanoi AD Jackson to serve as circuit court judge for the Third Circuit. The chair announced that the committee would not vote on the governor’s message or two judge nominations until Tuesday, April 15, but planned to vote that day on two Defender Council items. Testimony on Jackson’s nomination was limited to two minutes per speaker, and the hearing was conducted partly by Zoom. Supporters emphasized Jackson’s qualifications, work ethic, judicial temperament, and community ties. Testifiers included the West Hawaii Bar Association, family members, a retired teacher, retired Judge Robert Kim, and the Hawaii State Bar Association. The West Hawaii Bar Association said Jackson received high marks from its review process and that the Third Circuit needed a permanent judge for stability. Judge Kim and others praised her preparation, intelligence, humility, and experience as a prosecutor and litigator. Jackson also spoke in her own behalf, acknowledging that her background is primarily criminal rather than civil, but saying she is committed to learning the civil docket and serving the community if confirmed. Members questioned the Hawaii State Bar Association about the basis for its support, including how many members responded and whether concerns were raised about Jackson’s lack of civil experience. HSBA said it uses a confidential review process, receives both positive and negative comments, and does not track votes or percentages, but its board voted to support her. Judge Kim responded that judges can learn new areas of law, that civil dockets can be managed with benchbooks and help from other judges, and that Jackson’s trial experience would serve her well. No vote was taken on Jackson’s nomination during this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We hear that again, and I very much take it in good faith.
• We hear that again, and I very much take it in good faith.
• We hear that again, and I very much take it in good faith.
• We hear that again, and I very much take it in good faith.
• Okay, I need a hearing notice.

Summary: The joint committees first heard House Bill 229, which would establish a statewide speed restriction for motor vehicles under certain circumstances. Testimony on the bill was limited and came in support from the City and County of Honolulu’s transportation services, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. No one testified in opposition, and there were no questions. The committees then took up House Bill 860, which would grant immunity from liability to the state or counties when they repair or maintain a street whose ownership or jurisdiction is disputed between them. The Department of Transportation and the Department of Land and Natural Resources submitted written testimony, and the Hawaii State Association of Counties, Maui County Council Chair Alice Lee, Hawaii County Council member Heather Kimble, and the Iolani Homestead Community Association for Justice testified in support. The Ho Association for Justice opposed the bill, arguing the immunity was too broad and that the issue had already been addressed by prior legislation. In discussion, members raised concerns about liability and asked whether a different approach, such as extending the 2017 law transferring Oahu roads in limbo to the counties, would be acceptable; county representatives said that path could be considered if immunity were removed. House Bill 1161, which would authorize counties to use a road usage charge mechanism similar to the state’s, drew support from the Department of Transportation, the Energy Office, the Hawaii State Association of Counties, several county and city offices, and the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. Rental car companies and industry groups supported the concept but asked for amendments, including a flat fee instead of a per-mile charge, relief for plug-in hybrid vehicles, and a delayed implementation date. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii also supported relief for hybrids. Members questioned the rental car representatives about the flat-fee proposal, and they said a per-mile charge would be difficult to calculate and pass on to customers. At the end of the joint agenda, the committees deferred decision-making on HB 1161 to Tuesday, March 18 at 3:00 p.m., and the Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs committee also deferred the three measures to that date and time. The Transportation and Culture and the Arts committee then began hearing House Bill 925, which would create a Performing Arts Special Fund, and House Bill 1378, which would establish a Performing Arts Grants Program and Special Fund and revise the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts’ responsibilities and funding sources. HB 925 received support from the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts and written support or comments from DBEDT, the Hawaii Arts Alliance, and others. HB 1378 drew extensive testimony and discussion focused on preserving arts funding while addressing concerns about the use of Works of Art Special Fund dollars for positions and programming. The Governor’s office said it supported the intent but had concerns; the Attorney General warned that the bill’s cap and transfer provisions were unclear and could affect the tax-exempt status of bond-funded dollars; and the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts opposed the measure, urging an audit, tracking of deposits, and a shift of positions and programs to general funds instead of changing the law. The chair explained that the bill was intended to protect arts funding while tightening the legal guardrails around bond-financed dollars and preserving federal support, and asked testimony to focus on new points as the hearing continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, Chair Franson, thank you, committee, for hearing our plea.
• Yes, uh, thank you again, members, for hearing this bill.
• Thank you, Chairman Franson, for hearing our request.
• Thank you, Chairman Franson, for hearing our request.
• Can you hear me? Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. Can you hear me? Yes.

Bills: HF458 , HF459 , HF461 , HF449 , HF450 , HF965 , HF1280 , HF612 , HF615 , HF616 , HF622 , HF650 , HF651 , HF1045 , HF972 , HF851 , HF644 , HF1050

Committee: House Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• I think you're going to hear a lot of that today.
• You'll hear that time and time again, recognizing that cost should never be a barrier.
• It might not come as a surprise; we hear that a lot.
• So if I don't hear any other comments, I'll move to adjourn. Seeing none, we're adjourned.
• So if I don't hear any other comments, I'll move to adjourn. Seeing none, we're adjourned.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets

Summary: The committee heard testimony on the BRIGHT Act, a higher education capital bill that would use Fair Share surtax revenue to fund major repairs, modernization, and decarbonization projects across UMass, state universities, and community colleges. UMass leadership described a $4.8 billion deferred maintenance backlog, aging buildings, and the need to modernize facilities, improve accessibility, and reduce emissions. Administration officials said the bill would authorize $2.5 billion in capital funding, split roughly 50-50 between UMass and the rest of public higher education, plus additional targeted funding for housing planning, smaller modernization projects, campus master plans, and workforce skills grants. They emphasized that the financing structure is modeled on the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and would not raise student costs, while also supporting affordability through financial aid and free community college. Members raised questions about regional equity, the distribution of funds among the five UMass campuses and the 24 state university/community college campuses, project labor agreements, whether the bill would unlock private or federal matching funds, and how the system is preparing for AI and changing workforce needs. UMass officials said project selection is data-driven, based on deferred maintenance, safety, accessibility, sustainability, and programmatic needs, and that the flagship campus in Western Massachusetts would likely receive a large share because of its size and needs. They also said UMass Boston would receive its own share and would not be shortchanged by the Bayside project. On labor, they said PLAs are commonly used and they would follow existing board and building authority policies. On affordability, they said the university has shifted hundreds of millions into need-based aid and that the state’s recent support has helped keep tuition low for many students. DCAMM and higher education officials said the state’s public campuses account for a large share of state-owned building space and a disproportionate share of operational carbon emissions, making decarbonization a major driver of the bill. They said the legislation would allow larger, more comprehensive projects that can address deferred maintenance, energy efficiency, and program needs at the same time, while also making some projects shovel-ready through the Fair Share supplemental funding already appropriated. A later panel from the State Universities Council of Presidents argued the bill’s authorization is still too small to meet long-term needs and urged the committee to increase the bond cap and ensure a more equitable distribution among segments. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• What are the four worst words that a cattle farmer can hear? Your cows are out.
• Hearing none. Gentleman from Audrain, you are recognized to close.
• I hear this from mothers all over my district.
• I hear what you're saying, but I'm reading the words of your bill.
• I hear what you're saying, but I'm reading the words of your bill.

Summary: The House first established a quorum, then took up several bills for perfection and printing. House Bill 2297, a fence-law bill, was presented as a way to let livestock owners enter up to 10 feet onto neighboring property to repair fences, remove trees and debris on the fence line, and avoid trespass liability while repairing damage caused by livestock escaping. Supporters said the measure addresses a real rural problem and protects farmers who are already responsible for keeping animals contained; the bill was adopted and perfected and printed after debate over property rights and access concerns. The chamber then considered House Bills 2142 and 2058, a film and television tax incentive measure. Supporters said Missouri’s film credit program has produced strong economic returns, created jobs, and attracted productions, and they argued for combining separate film and TV funding buckets while removing a proposed sunset extension. An amendment to keep the sunset at 2029 was adopted, and the bill was then adopted, perfected, and printed. The House also took up House Bill 3004, a hardwood labeling bill requiring products sold in Missouri to be labeled accurately as wood or non-wood materials; supporters framed it as truth-in-advertising and protection for the state’s timber industry, while one member questioned how the law would apply to online and out-of-state sellers. The bill was adopted and perfected and printed. Next, the House considered House Bills 3283 and 3306, which set a timeline and process for public-sector collective bargaining disputes, including negotiation, mediation, and arbitration, and defined “good faith” in bargaining. An amendment narrowed the bill so it would not apply to teachers, police, or other excluded public employees under existing law. Supporters said the bill would prevent years-long contract disputes and save taxpayer money, especially for firefighters and other first responders; the substitute was adopted and perfected and printed. Finally, House Bill 2536, a bill on sex-designated restrooms and other private spaces in government-controlled settings, drew extensive debate. The sponsor said it was intended to protect privacy and safety in restrooms, changing rooms, sleeping quarters, schools, airports, correctional facilities, and similar spaces, and an amendment clarified exceptions for corrections officers and other public safety duties. Opponents argued the bill would target transgender people, create enforcement problems, and rely on signage rather than preventing crime; supporters said it was needed to protect women and girls. The amendment was adopted, and debate continued on the bill as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Just want to thank the committee for their time on hearing this bill.
• Just want to thank the committee for their time on hearing this bill.
• </c> Commissioner Voel, I didn't hear Commissioner Voel, I didn't hear anything<00:18:18.160><c> about
• We know we're going to be hearing it in the Senate as well.
• </c> and the one thing that I keep hearing and the one thing that I keep hearing over<00:46:11.520><c

Bills: HF858 , HF2577 , HF2576

Committee: House Agriculture Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• >> Do I hear a motion?
• We're going to open the public hearing.
• Um, we have about our public hearing.
• Or if time since today's public hearing.
• </c> sharing at the public hearing very much. sharing at the public hearing very much.

Committee: House Education Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• I think we're about to hear the fact that it does. It doesn't.
• Is that what I'm hearing? Yeah, on the individual income side. Wow.
• I keep hearing from many people that my constituents don't want this.
• We keep hearing about raising taxes.
• Your Committee on Veterans will meet in 10 minutes in Hearing Room 7.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for hearing from me today. And I'm Brandon Kernan.
• Thank you for for hearing this bill.
• We'll open the next one public hearing.
• Uh, and I'd like to thank y'all for hearing this bill.
• <00:56:33.760><c> and</c> hearing and hearing and really<00:56:35.599><c> no</c><00:56:35.839><c> time

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll now move into the public hearing portion of our meeting.
• Yes, we can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes, please go ahead. Okay. I'm sorry.
• We can hear you, and now we can see you, too. Wonderful.
• That ends the public testimony and the public hearing.
• So with that, we're adjourned. public hearing.

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on the Senate operating budget proposal, beginning with a staff briefing from James Kettle. He described the budget as built on relatively flat revenue after multiple forecast updates, with substantial mandatory cost growth, especially in Health Care Authority, DSHS, and DCYF. He highlighted major policy-level additions and savings, including large tort liability costs, continued support for long-term services, reductions tied to child care and K-12 items, several assumed revenue bills, and major transfers from reserves and other accounts. Kettle also noted the four-year outlook remained positive overall, with about $1 billion ending fund balance in the final year and roughly $3 billion in total reserves. A committee member asked about a diagram showing the loss of federal funds, and staff said they would follow up. Public testimony then focused first on K-12 education, where school leaders, teachers, OSPI, PTA, and rural district representatives largely opposed the proposed cuts to local effort assistance, transition to kindergarten, bus depreciation, and related school funding items. Many argued the reductions would disproportionately harm rural and property-poor districts and weaken early learning access, while several students and educators spoke in favor of career and technical education and IT Academy funding. The committee also heard support for wildfire prevention funding from the Commissioner of Public Lands, who thanked the Senate for restoring those dollars but raised concerns about recreation program reductions. Higher education testimony was mixed but generally supportive of the Senate proposal compared with the governor’s budget. Community and technical college leaders warned that the budget still shifts compensation costs to tuition and reduces Running Start funding, while university representatives from Western, Eastern, Central, WSU, and UW thanked the committee for avoiding deeper cuts. Private vocational college students and administrators urged extension of Washington College Grant eligibility for students already enrolled, and others asked to preserve IT Academy and related certification funding. In early learning, child care and advocacy groups praised the decision not to cap Working Connections Child Care but warned that child care and transition to kindergarten still bear a disproportionate share of cuts; they also requested continued support for Dolly Parton Imagination Library and Pierce County early childhood programs, including Family Connects. The hearing continued with testimony on employee compensation, mental health, and human services. State employee and retiree groups supported the budget’s COLA and wildfire funding but objected to cuts in retiree health benefits. Behavioral health and public safety advocates supported mentoring, Trueblood-related funding, crisis stabilization, and the Recovery Navigator Program, while others opposed reductions to those programs and to community-based recovery services. In human services, witnesses thanked the committee for funding victim services, child welfare supports, health homes, adult day care, community health centers, energy assistance, and disability services, while urging the committee to avoid further reductions to skilled nursing, case management, and recovery navigation. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is not a typical EQ hearing, but in many ways, these are not typical times.
• Today's hearing will be just one of many more conversations to come.
• I'm very glad that you brought this hearing forward.
• This hearing is really focused on that third bucket in your letter.
• Can you hear me? Great. Thank you, Madam Chair and members.

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and policy considerations surrounding refinery closures. Chair Blakespear framed the hearing as part of California’s broader transition away from fossil fuels, emphasizing the need for proactive planning so communities, workers, and local governments are not caught off guard. Vice Chair Gunda argued that the state has long signaled a future away from oil, while also warning that closures can create supply instability, higher prices, and infrastructure stress if not managed carefully. Senators also raised concerns about consumer costs, supply reliability, the role of imports, and whether California’s climate policies are contributing to refinery disinvestment. The first panel included the California Energy Commission, CARB, and the State Water Resources Control Board. Gunda described California as being in a “mid-transition,” with gasoline demand gradually declining, zero-emission vehicle adoption rising, and refinery capacity shrinking through both conversions to renewable fuels and outright closures. He said the state needs a coordinated strategy that balances near-term supply stability with long-term decarbonization, and noted that refinery closures can shift liabilities onto pipelines, terminals, and potentially the state. CARB’s Matthew Boutill said the agency’s focus is reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases, and that state policies are already driving billions in annual investment in alternative fuels, EV infrastructure, and refinery conversions. Water Board representative Annalisa Kihara explained the cleanup authorities used at refinery sites, including investigation, remediation, and enforcement tools, and said decommissioning often reveals previously inaccessible contamination and may require new monitoring wells and additional site assessment. Committee members pressed the panel on whether the state has enough information to plan for land reuse and cleanup costs, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more legislative direction is needed. Gunda said there are still gaps in information and transparency, especially around liability and long-term community planning. Kihara said the Water Boards can require more data, cleanup, and timelines, but that refinery remediation is highly site-specific and can take tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Senators Menjivar, Stern, and Hurtado questioned demand trends, the pace of refinery closures versus demand decline, the role of imports and the Jones Act, and whether California should consider options such as state ownership or broader ecosystem planning. The panel generally agreed that closures are likely to continue and that the state should plan proactively rather than reactively. A second panel presented recent research on refinery closures. Emily Grubert said closure costs and remediation obligations are often underestimated and that California should better define end-of-life obligations and financial assurance requirements. Tham Herschbach outlined five drivers of refinery closures: declining California crude production, falling in-state gasoline demand, the shift toward renewable diesel and other alternative fuels, global refinery consolidation, and the growing availability of imported gasoline. Anne Alexander focused on community impacts, using the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure as a case study, and said refinery sites are often heavily contaminated, cleanup can take a decade or more, and communities are often left without clear information because refineries have little end-of-life planning or financial assurance requirements. No votes or formal actions were taken at the informational hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll hear from Christina Carver with Community Solutions.
• We'll hear from Christina Carver with Community Solutions.
• They actually had a hearing yesterday where this was discussed.
• They actually had a hearing yesterday where this was discussed.
• Okay, we will now hear from the Division of Tourism.

Summary: The House Budget Committee heard the Department of Economic Development’s fiscal year 2027 budget presentation, beginning with Director Michelle Hadaway and division leaders. The department emphasized that most of its budget is federally funded and walked through requests for regional engagement, international trade and investment offices, business recruitment and marketing, Delta Regional Authority dues, business and community solutions, tax increment financing, MODESA, DRPP, CDBG, disaster recovery, Missouri Main Street, AmeriCorps, Missouri One Start, the Missouri Technology Corporation, semiconductor and API reshoring efforts, SSBCI, and other economic development items. Members repeatedly asked about lapses, one-time appropriations, whether general revenue could be reduced or replaced with other funds, and how the department prioritizes federal and other non-GR sources. Several members also praised regional engagement, Missouri Partnership, and rural economic development efforts. A major portion of the discussion focused on specific one-time or performance-based projects. Members questioned the large GR transfer for TIFs and MODESA, the use of funds for the Urban League plaza renovation, the Northeast Missouri housing fund, the Highway MM corridor, and the Missouri Technology Corporation. Department witnesses explained that many of these amounts are based on projected performance or are tied to multi-year obligations, and that some unspent balances reflect project timing, federal reimbursement timing, or delayed construction. The committee also discussed the Missouri Main Street program, with staff explaining it supports both new and existing Main Street communities and can be adapted for county-wide models. The committee spent significant time on workforce and innovation programs. Missouri One Start described its customized training and upskilling programs, including a statutory fund switch to align with existing law, while members asked for more data on participation and impact. Missouri Technology Corporation explained that reduced funding last year limited some entrepreneur-support programs, and that its venture fund has leveraged state dollars into private capital and jobs. Members also discussed the API reshoring item and semiconductor funding, asking what the money would do, what companies would benefit, and how much federal leverage the state could expect. Witnesses said the API request supports a nonprofit center working with existing Missouri companies to reshore pharmaceutical production, while the semiconductor item is tied to federal matching opportunities that have moved slowly. The committee did not take final action on the budget during the portion of the hearing provided. The chair recessed the committee to go to session, stating that the hearing would resume afterward and that public testimony on House Bill 2007 would follow completion of the department presentation.