Transcript Highlights:

• And I am, you know, trying to come in a bubble and in a very robust and positive fiscal year.
• In terms of the 750, we did run an analysis and I think while our initial calculation was admittedly
• When you're looking at your $1.07 in return, you're looking at that entire fiscal output.
• And in our analysis, we're not looking...
• Would that have been included in your analysis? No.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In terms of operations, we expended $14.7 million in capital outlay last fiscal year.
• We received three at the end of last fiscal year, and we had no transfers out.
• We got outside experts to help us with secondary reviews for company analysis.
• I'm actually interested in page six, which is the claim frequency by fiscal year.
• The columns are the fiscal year and the rows are the type of liability.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, selling debt in fiscal year 2025.
• capacity. and it shows that in fiscal capacity. and it shows that in fiscal year<00:08:39.279>
• And this is a fiscal note on, it's an unofficial fiscal note on unintroduced language.
• year 2026, $33 million in fiscal year 2027, $33 million in fiscal year 2028, and $33 million again in
• fiscal<01:46:32.880> year million in fiscal year million in fiscal year 2027,<01:46:34.639

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As noted in the committee's analysis, there is minor and absorbable to speak in support.
• As noted in your analysis, this bill would require minor absorbable general fund costs to the CDE.
• As the committee's analysis points out the fiscal impact of this bill should be minimal.
• As you can tell from the fiscal analysis, it's less than half a P.Y. that we're talking about here, and

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It'd be 24 hours in advance, so this provides our analysts enough time to prepare an analysis for you
• We take these in steps, and we fiscally feel. responsible, and we fiscally spend responsibly.
• I'm also aware they've recently done an analysis of their procurement processes and how they Procure
• Do you have the Department of Transportation's agency analysis? I only saw TRD's posted.
• Our economic analysis to date hasn't shown that there's.

Bills: SB2

Keywords: SB 2, State Highway Project Bonds, highway funding, transportation bonds, state road fund, motor vehicle fees, vehicle registration fees, electric vehicle fee, EV surcharge, plug-in hybrid fee, weight distance tax, road construction, infrastructure financing, Department of Transportation, State Transportation Commission, bonding authority, county road funds, municipal road funds, transportation improvement program, state highways

Transcript Highlights:

• I know you've been hearing some different analysis on the fiscal, and I'm also curious if you'd be open
• to an exemption to a certain just value to maybe lower that fiscal impact for everyone.
• What is your provision to help all of those fiscally constrained counties?
• Well, how much it's going to the fiscal impact? Sorry, Chair. Determination of the fiscal impact.
• Does the staff analysis say there was zero impact? Just walk me through what the fiscal was.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee met on March 27, 2025 and first considered HJR 1257 and its implementing bill, HB 1259, which would create two $25,000 property tax exemptions and an assessment cap for long-term rental properties owned by Floridians who also have a homestead in the state. Supporters argued the measure would increase long-term rental supply and help Florida residents, while opponents from counties and cities warned of a large revenue loss, potential tax shifts to businesses, and weak guardrails against abuse. Members raised concerns about wealthy owners holding many condos, possible family-member workarounds, and whether savings would actually reach tenants. The committee adopted an amendment to the implementing bill, then reported both measures favorably after party-line-leaning debate and recorded votes. The committee then unanimously reported HB 761, which limits deferred ad valorem and non-ad valorem tax relief to properties with a just value of $1 million or less and raises the minimum tax certificate sale amount from $250 to $500. Members also unanimously approved CS/HB 733 on brownfields, which expands and clarifies the state brownfields program, and two Osceola/Sunbridge local bills, CS/HB 4043 and HB 4059, dealing with special district infrastructure and district boundary expansion subject to voter approval. HB 995 on Areas of Critical State Concern, focused largely on the Florida Keys, was amended to remove the ad valorem tax exemption portion and to adjust the growth cap from 500 to 825 units, then was reported favorably. Later, the committee approved HB 6021, which repeals sales tax on all bullion purchases of gold, silver, and platinum, with supporters calling it a sound-money measure and critics asking about future revenue effects if related legal-tender legislation passes. Finally, the committee passed HB 1339, which excludes wind-damage mitigation improvements from assessed value for property tax purposes, after adopting a clarifying amendment about secondary water barriers. Throughout the meeting, most bills were reported favorably, often after brief debate and with little or no public testimony beyond support or opposition from affected local-government and industry groups.

Transcript Highlights:

• I do want to talk about the fiscal impact, but if you don't mind, Mr.
• And I do have a lot of information in my fiscal impact statements. So yes.
• Does this fiscal statement include any schools that do Thank you, Chairman.
• It just says provide a fiscal impact.
• Again, I don't want to speak for our fiscal person either.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's my pleasure to present SB 762, a bill which responds to the growing fiscal pressures facing local
• Cities and counties are facing growing fiscal pressures driven by rising health care and public safety
• But despite these efforts, fiscal challenges persist.
• So to address the fiscal needs of cities and counties, SB 762 establishes a limited process which allows
• And when it comes to the fiscal, larger fiscal issue, this is an ongoing human and legal cost of repeated

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 26 or fiscal year 27.
• year 2018 through fiscal year 2027.
• Fiscal year 20.
• Our actuarial analysis...
• know, the fiscal note of that.

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It could look back to either what was our rate in fiscal year 2025 or our rate in fiscal year 2026.
• We're already into fiscal year 2026, so it's likely we'll be looking to fiscal year 2026 to try to be
• In fiscal years 2025 and 2026 so far, it is a little bit lower than what we saw in fiscal year 2024.
• and the fiscal year 2024 line is a little bit above fiscal year 2023, and so on for fiscal year 2025.
• As you see the fiscal year 1023 cohort, over the last four years as you see the the fiscal year 1023

Summary: The committee heard testimony on the effects of H.R. 1 on Washington’s Medicaid, developmental disability, long-term care, and food assistance systems, followed by a separate discussion of juvenile rehabilitation caseloads and placement capacity. DSHS officials said HR1 could affect home equity rules, immigration-related eligibility, work requirements for some expansion-population enrollees, and provider taxes, while also creating a future opportunity for a new 1915(c) waiver. Advocates and providers warned that any state response that cuts home and community-based services would worsen already thin provider networks, increase waiting lists, push more people into hospitals or out-of-state placements, and strain families and workers. A pediatric behavioral health expert and a supported living provider said Medicaid reimbursement is already too low and further reductions would threaten outpatient, residential, and inpatient services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and severe behavioral needs. The committee then turned to SNAP and the state food assistance program. DSHS said HR1 would tighten work requirements and exemptions, end some immigrant eligibility for the federal program, eliminate the SNAP education program, raise state administrative costs, and eventually require Washington to share in benefit costs based on its error rate. Officials estimated large numbers of residents could lose or see reduced benefits, with significant added state costs. Anti-hunger advocates, a food bank director, and a SNAP recipient described the program as essential for low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities, and said the changes would increase paperwork, reduce benefits, and worsen food insecurity while also harming local food economies. Testimony emphasized that food banks cannot replace SNAP and that work requirements may be difficult to meet for caregivers, people with disabilities, and those facing child care or transportation barriers. In the juvenile justice portion, the Caseload Forecast Council presented the JR forecast, which is currently mostly flat through the end of the biennium but expected to grow modestly over the longer term. Members discussed how policy choices, including the 2019 JR-25 law, have increased lengths of stay for adult-sentenced youth in JR, while diversion and other reforms have affected regular JR trends. A court researcher explained the data available to help forecast admissions and noted ongoing efforts to improve data sharing with JR, AOC, and county systems, though staffing and system-lag issues limit how quickly data can be produced. Juvenile court administrators and DCYF officials described the community-based juvenile justice continuum, rising complexity in the JR population, overcrowding at Green Hill and placement constraints at Echo Glen and Harbor Heights, and the need for more flexible community transition and mental health capacity. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• So turning to page one, the starting point for this analysis is the same.
• Turning to page one, the starting point for this analysis is the $6.4 billion increase in the Proposition
• You mentioned that we're in May and we're at the end of the current fiscal year, the 25-26 year, and
• So although it feels very much like we should have more certainty at this point in the current fiscal
• Some are dealing with other fiscal pressures.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard the Governor’s May Revision proposals for TK-12 education, beginning with a Proposition 98 overview from the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Finance said the May Revision increases the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee by about $6.4 billion relative to the Governor’s January budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, continued full payment of the outstanding settle-up obligation in 2024-25, and a reduced $3.9 billion settle-up amount in 2025-26. Finance also described larger mandatory and discretionary deposits into the Proposition 98 reserve, ending with an estimated $10.3 billion reserve balance. The LAO said the overall estimates were reasonable, but urged the state to fully fund the guarantee and use other budget tools, including reserves, to manage volatility rather than delay settle-up payments. Members questioned the remaining settle-up amount, the risk of revenue volatility, and possible alternatives such as advance payments or other reserve strategies. The second panel covered Department of Education proposals and trailer bill language. Finance outlined additional state operations funding and positions for CDE, along with trailer bill changes affecting community schools, preschool, literacy, special education, charter accountability, teacher-related programs, and other technical cleanups. The LAO supported the overall structure of the package but recommended changes to several items, including rejecting some additional one-time community schools, literacy, math, multilingual screener, and inclusive college proposals, while supporting the ongoing LCFF and special education increases and raising concerns about the paid pregnancy disability leave proposal’s cost and implementation complexity. CDE supported the special education increase, community schools, literacy and math investments, homelessness funding, and the paid pregnancy leave proposal, while asking for more funding for county office support, clearer homelessness definitions, and continued preschool parity. Members also asked about immigrant student supports, community schools reporting, and the rationale and cost estimate for the paid pregnancy leave proposal, which Finance estimated at $218 million annually. The final panel addressed the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Finance proposed additional legal staffing for SB 848 implementation and educator misconduct caseloads, a fee increase for clear credential renewals from $100 to $125, a $5 million one-time Proposition 98 investment to build a transcript review platform, $2 million ongoing for transcript review staffing, and $30 million one-time for the statewide residency technical assistance center. The LAO had no concerns about the legal staffing, supported the transcript review platform if the fee increase and ongoing staffing were adopted, and recommended rejecting the residency technical assistance center expansion because existing funding runs through 2029. The Commission explained that the misconduct workload has grown over several years, that AI would assist but not replace human review in transcript matching, and that the residency technical assistance center helps recruit and retain teachers and support rural districts. Public commenters largely supported special education, discretionary block grants, community schools, literacy investments, homelessness funding, and teacher credentialing alternatives, while some urged rejection of the settle-up proposal and preschool COLA reduction.

Transcript Highlights:

• Illegal dumping poses a serious environmental, public health, and fiscal challenge.
• Analysis through paralysis. CEQA is like, again, I'll say it again, aspirin.
• Analysis through paralysis. CEQA is like, again, I'll say it again, aspirin.
• We recognize it's not a full-sequent analysis that the opposition is looking for.
• Process, we recognize it's not a full CEQA analysis that the opposition is looking for.

Summary: The committee heard a series of Senate bills on environmental, climate, recycling, wildfire, outdoor access, and clean transportation policy. SB 958 would clarify CEQA treatment of impacts tied solely to increased building height, and SB 1230 would increase penalties and create CalRecycle support tools for repeat commercial illegal dumping. SB 1341 would revise how processing fees are calculated for bag-in-a-box wine under California’s recycling program. All three measures received due-pass recommendations to Appropriations, with roll calls showing majority support and the bills left open for absent members. Members then took up SB 1300, which would create a more permanent legislative role in California’s international climate cooperation and establish a climate secretariat at UC; SB 1370, which would codify and streamline wildfire fuel-reduction permitting with added safeguards, geographic and size limits, and pesticide-related amendments; and SB 1260/1268, which would codify the Outdoors for All initiative and the Deputy Secretary for Access position at the Natural Resources Agency. Each drew support from environmental, utility, business, and local-government witnesses, while SB 1370 also drew opposition from environmental and advocacy groups concerned about reduced CEQA review and herbicide use. The committee discussed amendments at length, especially on SB 1370, and all three measures advanced with due-pass recommendations. The committee also heard SB 1213, the Clean Truck Transparency Act, requiring baseline pricing disclosure for medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission trucks tied to state incentives and directing agencies to explore alternative financing. Support came from clean-air, business, and environmental groups, and the trucking/manufacturing opposition moved to neutral after amendments; the bill advanced on a due-pass vote. Finally, SB 1075, the Clean Air Promise, sought to strengthen AB 617 implementation and clarify community emission reduction planning, but it generated substantial opposition from air districts, business groups, and others over enforceability, funding, and the distinction between formal SERPs and community L-SERPs. The author described additional pending amendments to narrow L-SERP provisions, and the bill also received a due-pass recommendation to Appropriations.

Transcript Highlights:

• I do want to talk about the fiscal impact, but...
• I do want to talk about the fiscal impact, but if you don't mind, Mr.
• it's common with fiscal notes that there often is a bit of a range.
• It just says provide a fiscal impact.
• part of the fiscal note.

Summary: The Legislative Management Committee met to fill a vacancy created by Representative Jared Hagert’s resignation, and the House majority recommended Representative Berg to replace him on the committee. The motion to appoint Berg was approved unanimously. The committee then took up its assigned task of estimating the fiscal impact of Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3, the school meals measure, which would require public schools, and optionally nonpublic and tribal schools, to provide breakfast and lunch at no cost to students and reimburse schools through state funds after federal reimbursements are maximized. Legislative Council’s Liz Fordall summarized the measure’s requirements and answered questions about implementation, including the 2027-28 start date, the measure’s interaction with the Legacy Earnings Fund, and the fact that the Legislature would still control the funding source. DPI’s Linnell Johnson then testified at length on current school meal programs, direct certification, CEP and Provision 2 participation, and likely behavioral changes if the measure passed. She estimated the biennial fiscal impact at $124 million to $134 million, with an additional roughly $300,000 in administrative costs, and explained that the estimate assumed higher participation and some schools shifting to CEP/Provision 2 to preserve federal reimbursements. She also noted that if no new applications were filed in non-CEP schools, the cost could be substantially higher. After discussion, Senator Sorvaag moved to report a fiscal impact range of $124,300,000 to $134,300,000 per biennium to the Secretary of State, and the motion carried. The committee also received an informational update from Legislative Council attorney Dustin Richard on the ongoing redistricting litigation, explaining that the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s prior ruling and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais, leaving the court-imposed map in effect for now. No action was required on that item, and the meeting adjourned after a brief note that the prior minutes would be brought back at a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• analysis related to costs, DFPI examiner costs are anticipated because the bill creates state forbearance
• Fiscal impact is noted on your agenda primarily at the end of page one and page two. is negligible as
• It's all self-contained within the administrative costs as is noted again on page 2 of your analysis
• While AB 226 has been tagged as a fiscal measure, as the Assemblymember pointed out, it's due solely
• The fiscal impact of AB 226 is minor and absorbable on the Department of Insurance and would allow the

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Subcommittee 4 of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee will come to order.
• year, including one full fiscal year of M&O.
• And we're abiding by those fiscal year estimates.
• Do you anticipate they will be done in the upcoming fiscal year or completed?
• this gap analysis with you.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard a budget item on vehicle license fee backfill funding, where the Department of Finance said the administration was not proposing the requested $119 million for San Mateo County, Alpine, and Mono, arguing the payment is discretionary and that existing excess ERAF formulas should remain unchanged. Senator Becker and former Senator Jackie Speier testified that the money is owed under the VLF swap arrangement and that San Mateo County faces major service cuts without the backfill; Senator Cabaldon raised broader policy questions about county boundaries and the structure of the formula. The chair held the item open after public comment. The committee then reviewed Secretary of State budget proposals. The department requested funding for SB 851 implementation, including additional duties related to election litigation notice, voting system standards, and vendor reporting, with $1.1 million General Fund in 2026-27 and $807,000 ongoing for four positions and software. Members asked about election security, federal HAVA funding, staffing, and implementation timing; the department said current federal funds are expected to run out in 2027-28 and that it hopes to hire quickly once funded. The item was held open. The Secretary of State also presented the Cal Access Replacement System (CARS), seeking $11.8 million General Fund to finish the project and begin operations, and the notary automation replacement project, seeking $9.795 million in Business Fees Fund for continued development of the outdated notary system. Members focused on project delays, stakeholder input, and whether the funding requests matched prior plans; the department said both projects were still on their original funding tracks but had shifted timelines due to planning needs and election-related workload. Both items were held open. CalVet presented its department overview and then discussed the new 240-bed skilled nursing facility at Yountville, which is nearing completion and will replace the aging Holderman Hospital building. Members asked about the future of Holderman, other campus capital projects, and a payroll/fringe-benefit issue affecting some employees; CalVet said Holderman will continue to house some functions, the roofing and steam projects remain in progress, and the tax issue has been addressed with new procedures and repayment arrangements. The committee also discussed eliminating vacant positions under Control Section 4.12, with CalVet saying the positions were long-vacant CNA and related jobs and the LAO noting the Legislature had not concurred; Senator Cabaldon said he had no objection, and the item was held open. Finally, the California Arts Council gave an overview of its work and its cultural districts program, describing grants and technical assistance in all 58 counties and citing examples of local impact. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas strongly supported additional funding, including a proposed $50 million General Fund investment and a $10 million carve-out for cultural districts, arguing the program supports economic development, preservation, and community identity; council staff said the program is currently unfunded and has only been able to designate a fraction of applicants. Senator Cabaldon noted that many parts of the state still lack cultural districts and urged broader geographic representation. The item was informational and no vote was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm with the House Fiscal Analysis Department, and I will be going through the housing finance and policy
• > Analysis with the House Fiscal Analysis with the House Fiscal Analysis Department<00:02:46.400
• appropriation in fiscal 26 and 27. appropriation in fiscal 26 and 27.
• fiscal 28 and 29 bianium. fiscal 28 and 29 bianium.
• That is in fiscal 25.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The Department of Revenue provides data and analysis as well, and the LBO may contract with outside parties
• as well and the LBO may and analysis as well and the LBO may contract<00:04:27.759> with<00:04
• 33.360> in three tax credits to be $2.4 million in three tax credits to be $2.4 million in fiscal
• fiscal year 2026. fiscal year 2026.
• services as well as the tax fiscal services as well as the tax research<00:30:31.600> division

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Does everybody also have the January 30th amendment or fiscal note? Excuse me, fiscal note.
• To do a full analysis, it would take a lot more time, I imagine. Somebody mentioned fiscal notes.
• If you look in the fiscal notes, that's what that fiscal note says.
• did a good fiscal note.
• I don't see a lot of analysis coming out of the Fiscal Policy Institute about it.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard HB 659, which would establish the New Hampshire College Graduate Retention Incentive Program. A Department of Revenue Administration analyst explained technical issues in the bill, focusing on whether the incentive is intended to operate as a rebate or a tax credit, how it would be administered, and how it would interact with the business enterprise tax and business profits tax. She said the bill’s language was unclear on the administering agency, effective tax years, caps, and carry-forward treatment, and noted that reducing BET can also reduce the BET credit against BPT, though not on a one-for-one basis. Committee members asked follow-up questions about the BET/BPT interaction, administrative costs, and whether the Department of Business and Economic Affairs would need additional staffing. Andrew Horn then testified in support, saying the bill is meant to address the large number of New Hampshire college graduates who leave the state after graduation by encouraging them to stay and by incentivizing businesses to hire them. The chair closed the hearing on HB 659 after no further public testimony. The committee then took up HB 770, a bill to establish a program allowing New Hampshire high school students to earn tuition credits at state higher education institutions through community service. Representative Schultz described the bill as a “triple play” intended to increase volunteerism, expand service and internship opportunities for students, and make college more affordable. Ryan Casey, a junior at Bishop Brady High School, testified that the proposal would help students reduce future loan debt while benefiting communities and encouraging young people to attend college in New Hampshire. Committee members asked about eligibility, including why private and preparatory school students were excluded, whether public school students would qualify, whether mandatory service hours would count, and how the bill’s references to education and business eligibility should be read. Schultz said the exclusion of private and prep schools was intended because public school students are more clearly New Hampshire residents, and she noted that mandatory school service hours had been excluded in revisions. The Department of Education then testified that the program would require significant administration, estimating at least three full-time staff, software or tracking systems, and rulemaking to oversee volunteer sites, schools, student eligibility, and tuition credit distribution. No vote was taken in the excerpt, and the hearing remained in testimony phase.

Transcript Highlights:

• It maintains the 50% federal cost share for federal fiscal year 2026.
• cost share for federal fiscal year 2028.
• For federal fiscal years 2029 and thereafter, states will use the error rate from the third fiscal year
• We are still doing our own analysis on— We are still doing our own analysis on what the potential fiscal
• Investments now will minimize our future fiscal liability from increased state benefit cost.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held its fifth hearing of the year to examine the newly enacted federal H.R. 1 and its effects on California. Members and the chair described the law as a major threat to state health, food, education, and climate programs, and emphasized that California would not be able to fully backfill the federal cuts. Several members also highlighted the bill’s tax provisions, including temporary deductions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, while warning that the largest benefits flow to higher-income taxpayers and that major cuts to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and clean-energy incentives are delayed or phased in over time. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance presented detailed overviews of the bill’s likely impacts and implementation timelines. They identified the main affected areas as health care coverage and financing, food assistance, higher education, personal income taxes, and clean-energy/electric-vehicle credits. They explained that H.R. 1 limits provider taxes used to finance Medi-Cal, adds work and redetermination requirements, restricts CalFresh eligibility and increases state costs, changes student loan and Pell Grant rules, extends and modifies federal tax provisions, and phases out many clean-energy credits. Finance also noted major rescissions of Inflation Reduction Act funds, new border and immigration enforcement spending, and the possibility of PAYGO sequestration if Congress does not act to offset the deficit increase. During member questions, the committee focused on likely enrollment losses, administrative burdens, and fiscal exposure for the state and counties. Witnesses said many details still depend on federal guidance, but they estimated significant impacts on Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and graduate/professional student borrowing, and noted that California’s high CalFresh error rate could increase state costs. UC testified that the elimination of Graduate PLUS loans would affect thousands of professional students, especially in health, law, and other high-cost programs. Members asked for follow-up data on county, health, and tax impacts, and staff agreed to provide additional tables and estimates as implementation guidance becomes clearer. Public commenters from counties, early childhood advocates, health coalitions, disability rights groups, immigrant-rights organizations, and other stakeholders urged the Legislature to mitigate the law’s effects. They warned of higher county costs, reduced access to health care and food assistance, increased administrative burdens, and harm to children, immigrants, people with disabilities, and low-income families. Several urged new state revenue solutions and stronger protections for Medi-Cal, CalFresh, child care, and home- and community-based services. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with a commitment to continue monitoring federal guidance and to work on state responses in the budget process.

Transcript Highlights:

• fiscal safeguards, including reserve fiscal safeguards, including reserve caps,<00:17:55.640>
• > and It adds fiscal discipline and It adds fiscal discipline and operational<00:21:59.680>
• <00:22:24.400> Thank fiscal and fiscal responsibility.
• Thank fiscal and fiscal responsibility. Thank you. you. you.
• That is a new mandate, and no, it was never a cost analysis.

Keywords: 1189, house, all