Transcript Highlights:

• And then you could put a note.
• One thing I do want to note is that sometimes it'll say, you know, there's the same client.
• One thing to note is that around the fiscal cutoffs, when I had developed... ...is that around the fiscal
• And to be clear, too, around the cutoffs, especially fiscal cutoff, Kevin reaches out to the fiscal coordinators
• And to be clear, too, around the cutoffs, especially fiscal cutoff, Kevin reaches out to the fiscal coordinators

Summary: The Statute Law Committee met on December 10, 2025, approved the June 10, 2025 minutes, and received a publications update noting that the 2025 RCW volumes and session laws are available, with sales continuing a gradual decline but generally tracking prior years. The committee also heard that the office remains fully staffed and financially stable, with projected year-end funds remaining and a healthy publications fund balance. A major discussion centered on a proposal from retired Judge Ann Levinson to make the code more reader-friendly when chapters are repealed and recodified, especially after the civil protection orders reform in E2 SHB 1320, which consolidated multiple protection order laws into new chapter 7.105 RCW. Levinson argued that current disposition-table language such as “repealed by” can be confusing to the public and may appear to signal legislative disapproval, and suggested adding a simple pointer to the new chapter. Code revisers explained their current practice, the limits of their editorial discretion, and the technical and policy concerns involved, while expressing support for some form of “see also” guidance and noting that hyperlinking session-law citations in disposition tables may also help readers find the new law. The committee also discussed office operations, including a planned move from the modular offices back into the rebuilt Pritchard building, expected in late 2026, with improved space, storage, and enclosed offices. Staff proposed changing regular Monday-through-Thursday office hours from 8 a.m.–8 p.m. to 8 a.m.–7 p.m., with exceptions for active work, client requests, and floor action; the proposal was supported by a chart showing that many evenings have no work after 7 p.m., though late nights would still occur during busy periods. The meeting ended with acknowledgments of retiring staff, including editor Barb Sage after 37 years of service, and a farewell to Vice Chair Sam Thompson, whose successor had just been selected.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what we would like to see is, similar to a fiscal note, when those bills are posted, you have the
• fiscal note that you can just click online and see the fiscal note.
• Dylan, you noted some potential broader test groups about mandates.
• However, I would note that Wyoming has not expanded Medicaid at all.
• You will note that there are many counties that have no enrolled dentists.

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:

• a $120,000 cost for fiscal year 28-29.
• It has a negligible cost beginning in fiscal year 28.
• It has an unknown effect beginning in fiscal year 28.
• There's no fiscal effect for those.
• <00:31:01.320> year fiscal year fiscal year 28<00:31:03.279> um<00:31:03.760> those<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• generally good news, it's worth noting generally good news, it's worth noting this<00:03:18.239>
• projected balance at the end of fiscal projected balance at the end of fiscal years<00:05:09.199
• future fiscal crisis. future fiscal crisis.
• likely we are to face a future fiscal likely we are to face a future fiscal cliff. cliff. cliff.
• . that fiscal discipline on this forecast. that fiscal discipline will<00:34:56.560> remain<00

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: Minnesota Management and Budget officials presented the February 2026 budget and economic forecast, saying the state remains in a strong financial position but faces continued structural imbalance and significant uncertainty. Commissioner Aaron Campbell said the FY 2026-27 balance is now projected at more than $3.7 billion, up about $1.3 billion from November, and the FY 2028-29 planning period is projected to end with a $377 million positive balance. He emphasized that the improvement comes largely from higher projected revenues, especially individual income and corporate franchise taxes, but warned that the state is increasingly reliant on more volatile sources such as capital gains, interest income, and corporate profits. State Economist Dr. Anthony Becker said the national outlook improved slightly, with stronger projected GDP, consumer spending, and investment, but weaker payroll growth and ongoing trade-policy uncertainty. He noted that the forecast was complicated by missing federal data because of the federal shutdown, and that tariffs, immigration policy, equity markets, and possible AI-related shifts all present risks. Revenue projections were raised for the current biennium, including individual income tax receipts, sales tax revenue, corporate franchise tax revenue, and other revenues, while Becker stressed that federal funding threats, especially involving Medicaid and other entitlement programs, could materially alter the outlook. State Budget Director Anna Mingi said general fund spending in the current biennium is projected to be $68 million lower than previously estimated, but planning-year spending is up $152 million. The biggest spending changes came from education, where special education costs rose sharply after updated local spending data, and from human services, where a new prepayment review process for certain Medicaid benefits reduced projected spending by $133 million this biennium and $105 million in the next. She also said discretionary inflation is now estimated at $1.04 billion, up $104 million from November. Campbell closed by saying the state’s reserve remains at a record $3.8 billion and that Minnesota’s AAA bond rating and reserve policy help protect against downturns. He cautioned, however, that the long-term structural imbalance remains about $3.4 billion in the planning years, or $2.3 billion excluding discretionary inflation, and urged policymakers to offset any new spending with reductions. No votes or formal actions were taken; the meeting was a presentation and question-and-answer session on the forecast.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, we're still waiting on that fiscal Um, we're still waiting on that fiscal note,<00:32:18.000
• Oh, there's a fiscal note that came in. It's 63,000. Oh, Mr. Chair. Yeah.
• Um this uh bill is funded at the fiscal Um this uh bill is funded at the fiscal note<02:11:40.800
• c> an<02:11:52.719> offset the fiscal note accounted for an offset the fiscal note accounted
• for a fiscal note to show up. for a fiscal note to show up.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of 5.6 million in fiscal 2030, 8 million in fiscal 31, and ongoing for the life of the bonds, approximately
• $2 million in fiscal in fiscal 29. $2 million in fiscal in fiscal 29.
• <00:03:05.920> 31,<00:03:06.519> and fiscal 2030, 8 million in fiscal 31, and fiscal
• in fiscal 2026. in fiscal 2026.
• > which<00:04:31.280> on, million in fiscal 28 and 29, which on, million in fiscal 28 and

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The conference committee on House File 1141, the Omnibus Housing Finance and Policy Bill, reviewed the fiscal spreadsheet and policy language for the agreement. Staff explained the major funding items, including appropriations for greater Minnesota workforce housing, manufactured home park infrastructure grants, family homelessness prevention, supportive housing, a tenant hotline, and housing infrastructure bonds, along with a cancellation of unused Tyler settlement funds and a reallocation of Housing Development Fund earnings. Staff said the package was budget neutral over the forecast window. The policy walk-through also covered provisions on livestreaming Housing Finance Agency board meetings, limits on administrative retentions for new grant programs, restrictions and reporting on Housing Development Fund transfers and earnings, clarifying language for local public housing, an exemption related to lived-experience engagement, and access for legislative fiscal staff to agency accounting information. Members then considered several amendments. The A12 amendment, allowing certain local governments to invest long-term funds in housing-related investments, was adopted after a roll call showed support from all three caucuses. The A16 manufactured housing bill of rights amendment, which would have addressed park-owner practices, purchase opportunities, enforcement, and rent increases, was not adopted. The A18 amendment to allow additional flags in HOAs and other areas was also not adopted. The A17 amendment to limit private equity ownership of single-family homes to 100 units was not adopted. The A13 amendment to preempt local rent control was not adopted. Members on both sides said some of the rejected issues warranted further discussion in future sessions, while supporters argued they were needed to address housing affordability and ownership pressures. In closing discussion on the bill as a whole, members from both chambers praised the bipartisan process, the staff work, and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency’s collaboration. Supporters said the agreement would help build thousands of homes across the state, assist vulnerable Minnesotans, and improve transparency and accountability in housing programs. They also noted the bill’s mix of single-family, multifamily, manufactured housing, homelessness prevention, and policy reforms. The committee expressed intent to move the agreement forward to the House floor and ultimately to the governor.

Transcript Highlights:

• We heard from a senior fiscal analyst from the Joint Fiscal Office.
• the from a senior fiscal analyst from the joint<00:26:26.159> fiscal<00:26:26.559> office.
• We heard from joint fiscal office.
• The Joint Fiscal Office has prepared a fiscal note that can be found on our committee's website or the
• beginning in fiscal 2028. beginning in fiscal 2028.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House opened with a devotional reading by Theo Novak, a student and Vermont Poetry Out Loud finalist, followed by several announcements, including a welcome for the guest speaker and a reminder about a freshman legislator gathering and the day’s corporate cup road closures. The House then postponed action for one legislative day on Senate Bill 208, relating to law enforcement identification; Senate Bill 212, relating to portable water supply and wastewater system connections; and House Bill 639, relating to genetic data privacy. The main floor action centered on House Bill 648, banking, insurance, and securities. The Commerce and Economic Development Committee presented Senate amendments and its own further amendments, including clarifications to consumer reinvestment reporting and a proposal to extend and then effectively end the moratorium on new cryptocurrency kiosks in Vermont. The committee described extensive testimony and data on crypto kiosk fraud, money laundering, and consumer losses, and also added a new licensing framework for merchant cash advance providers. Ways and Means reported the fiscal impact would be very small. After a brief question about the $1 million exemption threshold for commercial financing, the House concurred in the Senate proposal of amendment with further amendment thereto. The House also passed Senate Bill 243, distributing funds to the Vermont Language Justice Project, in concurrence with proposal of amendment. It then took up Senate Bill 198, regulating tobacco products and tobacco substitutes. The Commerce and Economic Development Committee described updates to the definition of tobacco substitutes, creation of a wholesale licensing system under the Department of Liquor and Lottery, tighter controls on online sales, and bans on deceptive products that resemble school supplies, food, smartphones, inhalers, or video games. The committee heard testimony from health, enforcement, industry, and advocacy witnesses and voted 11-0 in favor. Human Services then proposed a strike-all amendment to the committee report, with further consideration to continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, do we have a fiscal note on this?
• I mean, we have a fiscal note on this?
• Was there a fiscal note you, Mr. Chair.
• There was not a fiscal note done on this.
• fiscal note that noted we did provide a fiscal note that noted that<01:27:28.840> number<01:27

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• He said a total of four FTEs is the main cause of the fiscal note.
• A total of four FTEs is the main cause of the fiscal note.
• Seeing no further discussion, Representative Erin Koegel said she was looking at the fiscal note and
• Representative Erin Koegel said she was looking at the fiscal note and asked how much money goes into
• looking at the fiscal note really quick. looking at the fiscal note really quick.

Bills: SF1959, HF2444, SF2298, HF2445, SF2216, HF2443, HF2130, HF1943, HF2436, HF2442

Keywords: veterans, military affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Military Affairs, omnibus veterans bill, appropriations, National Guard, state active service, armory, State Armory Building Commission, veterans homes, veterans cemeteries, county veterans service office, Minnesota GI Bill, Gold Star families, Blue Star families, Secret War in Laos, Hmong veterans, Laos veterans, special guerrilla units

Transcript Highlights:

• We had a revised fiscal note come in related to the employer contributions for the new probation and
• We had a revised fiscal<00:06:37.800> note<00:06:38.080> come<00:06:38.280> in<00
• :06:38.960> related<00:06:39.480> to<00:06:39.720> the fiscal note come in related
• to the fiscal note come in related to the employer<00:06:40.360> contributions<00:06:41.160><
• current biennium, fiscal year 26 and 27. current biennium, fiscal year 26 and 27.

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Chair, Representative, yeah, that's this is for Fiscal Year 26, so the current fiscal year, and
• Fiscal Year 27 for the upcoming fiscal year.
• Those are addressed in House Bill 1, making funding available for the current fiscal year, Fiscal Year
• 26, and into Fiscal Year 27.
• And I just got a text from Health and Human Services, and that HCA just noted that at the end of fiscal

Transcript Highlights:

• you know, we that in the in the fiscal you know, we that in the in the fiscal note<00:53:10.600>
• I'm just looking at the fiscal note and seeing that the DRA's modeling determined there could be a fiscal
• And just reading the fiscal note, it's obvious DRA does not want conformity.
• :23.800> it's<01:20:23.920> obvious reading the fiscal note, it's obvious reading the fiscal
• <01:48:24.719> note, You will see that in the fiscal note, You will see that in the fiscal

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So when determining fiscal year 25's 25% spending cap, you would take fiscal year 24's ending fund balance
• And that would equal your cap for fiscal year 25.
• So we would have just looked at fiscal year 2024 and 2025.
• Chairman, and Representative Mathy, I did testify last week at the fiscal, or at—I did do a fiscal statement
• I know John keeps notes. Even when I'm on Teams or Zoom, I think we use Zoom, I take notes.

Summary: The committee convened, approved the prior meeting minutes, and received a memo summarizing major audit items. The State Auditor’s office and outside auditors then presented a series of audits, many of which were clean with unmodified opinions and no findings, including the Bank of North Dakota, the Guaranteed Student Loan Program, the Office of the Governor, the State Treasurer, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Environmental Quality, Lake Region State College, and the Office of the Governor. The North Dakota Stockmen’s Association audit was also clean overall, but it repeated findings about limited segregation of duties and auditor assistance in preparing financial statements, which the auditor said were expected to continue because of the organization’s small size. Committee members asked about out-of-state board addresses, and the association explained those members were North Dakota residents using South Dakota mailing addresses. Several audits did include findings. The Council on the Arts audit identified two issues: payroll charged to federal awards without supporting time records, and $12,825 in Cultural Endowment Fund spending that was not allowable under state law, including staff training, retreats, and executive director candidate travel. The Department of Public Instruction audit found unsupported scholarship applications in the paraprofessional-to-teacher program, but additional testing confirmed the funds were credited properly and students completed required school district work, so no improper payments were identified. The University of North Dakota audit found a lack of documentation and transparency in School of Law admissions decisions; the auditor said the law school used a holistic process but did not keep notes or evaluation tools to show why applicants were admitted, waitlisted, or denied. UND leadership said the school is in good standing with the American Bar Association and agreed better documentation is needed, and the auditor said the issue was the missing documentation, not ABA accreditation itself. The most extensive discussion centered on the North Dakota Racing Commission audit, which found four findings: overspending the promotion fund’s 25% operating cap, grant conditions not being met, improper breeder fund awards, and improper procurement. The auditor said promotion fund spending exceeded the cap by $327,447 and the fund balance dropped sharply over the audit period. Racing Commission director Bruce Johnson said the agency had become complacent, that grant requests were treated as routine, and that controls and documentation need to be tightened. He also explained that the breeder fund overpayments involved two horses whose ownership transfers were not properly documented before racing, and that the procurement issue stemmed from an advertising contract that proceeded without proper written procurement procedures after a misunderstanding with the State Procurement Office. The auditor said the Racing Commission will now be audited every two years because of the findings. The committee also received updates on Dakota College at Bottineau’s bank reconciliations, which Minot State University said had been brought current after an 18-month backlog, with only one account still needing cleanup; members asked for a written report on the corrective actions. The North Dakota Fair Foundation was reported to have dissolved, with remaining funds transferred to another nonprofit account for continued support of the state fair. Finally, the Department of Public Instruction provided an update on school meal debt, revising the earlier estimate to about $1.1 million based on incomplete district survey responses, and said the Anti-Lunch Shaming law likely increased meal debt because schools must feed students regardless of account balance. Members discussed the need for a more accurate year-end debt figure and possible future reporting at a later committee meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just wondered if there was a fiscal note on this and if you could describe the cost.
• note on this if um there was a fiscal note on this and<00:52:54.559> if<00:52:54.800> you<
• Um there yes, a fiscal note was Robbins.
• <00:54:34.960> note,<00:54:35.200> the understand it from the fiscal note, the understand
• <00:54:45.520> doing<00:54:45.760> the the fiscal note for OHI are doing the the fiscal

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up a series of “same and similar” provisions between the House and Senate higher education bills and adopted them one by one, with brief explanations from members and staff. The items included a cybersecurity addition for a doctoral degree program, Northstar Promise definitions and eligibility limits, self-loan provisions on institution eligibility and data disclosure, and dual training language requiring certificates, diplomas, or degrees to come from accredited postsecondary institutions. The committee also adopted an amendment to the private career school provisions that clarified exempt institutions remain within the act, and removed certain limited-license and renewal fees for institutions participating in dual training grants or the eligible training provider list. Each of these motions prevailed by voice vote. The committee then moved into policy differences between the House and Senate bills, beginning with emergency grants and hunger-free campus grants. Members discussed shifting funding from OHE-administered competitive grants to direct appropriations for the University of Minnesota and Minnesota State, while the Senate retained competitive grant access for private and tribal colleges and added reporting requirements. OHE Commissioner Dennis Olson said the added reporting would be an extra administrative task but raised no significant concerns. Testifiers from the University of Minnesota, Minnesota State, and the private college sector supported faster, more direct funding and described the grants as important for emergency housing, transportation, food insecurity, and other student basic needs. A LeadMN representative also supported the changes, saying campus staff and students wanted funds delivered more quickly. The committee also discussed direct admissions on R31. The Senate proposal would require public and charter high schools to participate in the direct admissions program by the 2029-2030 school year. Assistant Commissioner Wendy Robinson said OHE supports statewide expansion and that the program has improved FAFSA completion, college enrollment, and student retention in Minnesota. Members noted the bill had bipartisan support and heard from advocates such as Ed Allies and Students United. No votes were taken on the policy-difference items during this portion of the meeting, and the chair said further discussion of state grant and sexual misconduct policy differences would be held at a later hearing with additional OHE staff present.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, so let's, on a positive note, move forward.
• This is a summary of Fiscal Year 25 that just ended June 30.
• But first I wanted to note in the table you'll see a subnote about item 2, or the 200s.
• The four positions we're requesting at this time, the first is a fiscal analyst.
• Chair, I just want to make a quick note.

Transcript Highlights:

• Noted. Thank you. So I want to, yes, ma'am.
• Yep, noted. Thank you very much.
• In the orange bars, you'll see the fiscal 26 enacted budget.
• You'll see the orange bars reflecting the fiscal 26...
• 20 federal funding lost to Arizona hospitals by the time we get to fiscal 20 fiscal 33 mr. chair hand

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee met to review the governor’s fiscal 2027 budget presentation, with the chair repeatedly asking members to keep questions brief and avoid speeches. The discussion focused first on the overall revenue and spending outlook, including concerns from members that the executive forecast was more optimistic than the JLBC baseline and that the budget appeared to front-load revenue and expenditure growth. The governor’s budget team said the forecast was close to JLBC’s, that the budget was structurally balanced, and that differences were roughly $100 million per year on ongoing revenue. Members asked for follow-up calculations in writing, including the total multi-year gap and the amount of revenue enhancements above base revenues. A major portion of the meeting centered on tax and fee proposals tied to data centers, water use, and sports betting. The governor’s team defended eliminating the existing data center tax incentive as the removal of a loophole rather than a new tax, arguing the incentive had already succeeded in attracting major investment. They also described a proposed Department of Water Resources fee-setting authority for data centers to support a new Colorado River Protection Fund, and said the proposal would apply to existing and future facilities without a grandfather clause. Members raised concerns about fairness, competitiveness, and whether the changes would require a supermajority vote. The team also discussed increased sports betting fees, saying the revenue forecast did not include dynamic behavioral effects. The committee then moved through major spending areas, including corrections, public safety, border security, cybersecurity, K-12 education, Medicaid, and developmental disabilities. The governor’s budget includes ongoing funding to prevent correctional officer pay cuts, money to comply with prison health care court orders, probation funding, body-worn cameras, law enforcement staffing, fentanyl task forces, and cyber readiness grants. Members questioned the lack of funding for a prison oversight committee and asked for corrections spending totals over the administration. On border security, the executive said it was seeking about $759.7 million in federal reimbursement for border-related costs and that the governor had met with federal officials, including Secretary Noem and Tom Homan, about the request. In education, the budget proposes renewing Prop. 123, adding K-12 base funding, and issuing $1.5 billion in school facilities bonds over three years; members debated whether the proposal was appropriate and whether Prop. 123 revenues could support the debt service. The meeting also covered AHCCCS cost growth and federal HR1 impacts, with the executive warning of major coverage losses and hospital funding reductions, and DDD funding, where the governor’s team said the budget fully funds services and includes about $120 million in supplemental needs. No votes were taken; the meeting was a presentation and question-and-answer session only.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm just kind of off the cuff, but because I'm the CBO on the fiscal side, we do have fiscal indicators
• I understand that the fiscal part along those lines.
• I understand that the fiscal part along those lines.
• Coherence is impossible without fiscal predictability.
• Finally, budget timing, as Sarah Petroski just noted, and I think you may have noted that as well, the

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

Transcript Highlights:

• So we'd probably need a fiscal note from those people as well.
• So we'd probably need a fiscal note from those people as well.
• fiscal note from from probably need um a fiscal note from from those<01:00:01.839> people<01:
• I did request a fiscal note, but bill.
• mean, if it comes back with a fiscal mean, if it comes back with a fiscal note,<01:01:07.839>

Bills: HF3477, HF3414, HF103, HF3661, HF3146

Keywords: civil rights, law enforcement, federal collaboration, accountability, state law, constitutional rights, color of law, 42 U.S.C. 1983, section 1983, civil action, damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees, law enforcement task force, federal-state cooperation, intergovernmental agreement, federal agency partnership, Minnesota Constitution, U.S. Constitution, police accountability

Transcript Highlights:

• Berg responded that the base for 2026-27 is about $220 million, and that there is a pending fiscal note
• on the bill because changing and equalizing the rate upward will cost money, so the fiscal note is not
• So we don't know what the fiscal note will be.
• How long has a fiscal note been requested on this bill? Okay, uh... Representative, you mind?
• on<01:26:31.719> this<01:26:32.119> bill fiscal note been requested on this bill fiscal

Bills: HF1346, HF1169, HF1276

Keywords: mandatory reporting, training requirements, child maltreatment, abuse detection, local welfare agency, child protection, child welfare, paperwork reduction, social services information system, SSIS, Department of Children, Youth, and Families, foster care, children in placement, county social services, Tribal governments, private child placing agencies, case management, administrative burden, information technology, human services

Transcript Highlights:

• noting the amount of pain that this causes to make... ...noting the amount of pain that this causes to
• I would note that we had 15 applications for a total of 1,674 beds.
• I would note that we had 15 applications for a total of 1,674 beds.
• We think the focus at budget time should be on the fiscal picture.
• I will just note that there's no General Fund for this proposal.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held an informational hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, focusing first on the Commission on Behavioral Health, then EMSA, and then the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). The Department of Finance said the state faces a third consecutive deficit and that the May Revision includes difficult trade-offs, including proposed eliminations or reversions of some behavioral health and public health funds. The LAO echoed concern about the structural deficit and said it was still awaiting some budget details before offering a full analysis. For the Commission on Behavioral Health, Finance proposed eliminating $20 million in Mental Health Wellness Act funds, arguing the money would help offset General Fund costs and noting future Proposition 1 innovation funding. The commission strongly opposed the cut, saying it would eliminate or delay launch-ready grants for early childhood supports, full-service partnerships, and peer respite, and would eventually end ongoing grant programming. Several advocates and commissioners testified that the funds support underserved communities and that Proposition 1 is not a substitute for the existing programs. The chair asked Finance to look for alternatives, but no vote was taken. EMSA presented mostly technical budget adjustments: increased authority for the California Poison Control System, a correction to EMSIS funding, and a reappropriation for enterprise services and data management. CDPH then reviewed a broader set of May Revision proposals, including reversions from the California Reducing Disparities Project, workforce development, STD prevention, hepatitis C prevention, hospice, and extreme heat funding, as well as a new generative AI pilot for health facility survey reporting. Members raised concerns about cuts to CRDP and gender health equity programs, especially because many grants are mid-contract and serve underserved communities; CDPH said the reversions were part of solving the deficit and that CRDP had been successful, while also clarifying that abortion.ca.gov would not be eliminated. Public comment was overwhelmingly opposed to the CRDP and related cuts, with many speakers describing the programs as life-saving and cost-effective. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.