Transcript Highlights:

• We are the only state in the nation that has this process.
• Prop. 103 says to get this approved as quickly as possible.
• One would be the timeliness of the rate filing process.
• process, incentivizing risk reduction, and promoting a more reliable approval process, incentivizing
• One would be the timeliness of the rate filing process.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held its fifth oversight hearing on the California Department of Insurance’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy (SIS), with Commissioner Ricardo Lara providing an update on implementation. Lara said the department has finalized major reforms, including new catastrophe modeling tools, faster rate review procedures, use of forward-looking data tied to mitigation, and modernization of the FAIR Plan. He argued the strategy is intended to improve insurance availability in wildfire-prone areas, increase transparency, and stabilize the market, while also criticizing consumer intervenor groups and saying the department will tighten rules on intervener compensation and relevance. Members questioned Lara about when the SIS would begin producing visible market changes, how long rate filings would take to approve, and what the FAIR Plan modernization would mean for consumers’ costs. Lara said catastrophe model approvals should be completed by the end of the month, insurers are expected to begin submitting SIS filings in the coming weeks, and rate reviews have already been reduced from 281 days to 71 days. He also discussed a new market conduct investigation into State Farm’s handling of wildfire claims, ongoing complaints about smoke-damage claims, and a newly created smoke claims and remediation task force to develop standards. Lara said the department has helped more than 12,000 wildfire survivors, with over 38,000 claims filed and more than $17 billion paid, and that it is also working with other western states on underinsurance issues. Public commenters from the insurance industry, homebuilding, and insurance brokerage sectors largely supported the SIS and the department’s efforts, saying the reforms are needed to restore availability and stability. They emphasized the importance of timely rate approvals, FAIR Plan solvency, and greater transparency, and several noted that member companies are preparing to use the new filing process. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, though members and the commissioner discussed ongoing legislative needs, including AB 226 and possible future FAIR Plan transparency measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• On February 20th, the Louisiana State Fire Marshal began the inspection process for the approval of Live
• On February 20th, the Louisiana State Fire Marshal began the inspection process for the approval of Lives
• Hearing none, the settlement is approved. Thank you.
• If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve the settlement.
• Now over to the final matter under approved settlements.

Summary: The Louisiana Gaming Control Board met on February 26, 2026, and first approved the January minutes and received revenue reports showing year-over-year gains in several sectors, including riverboats, racetrack slots, video gaming devices, sports wagering, and daily fantasy sports. Staff also reported on fourth-quarter 2025 employment and procurement compliance for riverboat and racetrack licensees, noting several properties that missed employment or procurement targets, while others were fully compliant. Under casino gaming issues, the board approved annual certificates of compliance for Bally’s Shreveport Casino and Hotel and Live Casino and Hotel. It also approved two petitions finding Alpha North Partners Fund, Inc. and Alpha North Asset Management to be institutional investors in connection with Jackpot Digital’s pending manufacturer and supplier applications. Under video gaming issues, the board approved a transfer of membership interest in Bonus Casino, LLC. The board then approved a series of proposed settlements involving late filings, permit lapses, and ownership-notification violations, including matters involving American Amusements, McKinley’s Pub, Whispering Pines Plaza and Casino, Ms. Mamie’s Rain Casino, Pablo’s Truck Stop Casino, Clearly Tavern and Sports Bar, and Golden Lantern, with civil penalties ranging from $750 to $9,250. In the final agenda items, the board granted reconsideration for Burritos Grill LLC after finding a good-faith but misdirected hearing request, but denied reconsideration for Toby’s Dead, Inc., doing business as The Gemini, concluding that the licensee missed the hearing deadline and that no sufficient grounds for rehearing were shown. The board then adjourned and announced its next meeting for March 16, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• This process... This process is complicated and requires expertise and access to financing.
• process.
• For local agencies to process post-entitlement permits, ensuring that approved housing projects can actually
• This legislation aims to streamline the housing approval process, targeting areas where housing developers
• So I think the process sucks.

Committee: House Housing and Community Development

Transcript Highlights:

• In both fiscal years 2023 and 2024, we identified that DES had some gaps in its payment approval process
• the single audit process.
• to approve and monitor child care providers, review the processes at the Arizona Department of Health
• Services... ...providers, review the processes at the Arizona Department of Health Services, those processes
• them know what the scope has been approved.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Audit Committee

Summary: The committee first heard an update on Topok Elementary School District’s long-running noncompliance with Arizona’s Uniform System of Financial Records. The Auditor General’s office explained the USFR noncompliance process and reported that Topok had made substantial progress, correcting many deficiencies in areas such as open meeting law, procurement, payroll, attendance reporting, property control, and information technology. The district’s superintendent and staff described the corrective actions they had taken, the use of outside consultants, and their plan to maintain compliance through stronger leadership, training, and consistent procedures. Members praised the district’s progress and asked about the remaining deficiencies and the status of the 3% state-aid withholding, which the Auditor General said would be addressed by the State Board of Education. The committee then considered a request for a fourth school safety special audit, tied to concerns raised by Representative Martinez about Phoenix Union High School District and school violence response practices. The Auditor General said the proposed audit would be a new topic focused on policies and procedures for responding to credible threats of violence and allegations of staff misconduct affecting student safety, and could include Phoenix Union in the sample. Representative Martinez described a fatal 2024 shooting, weapons incidents, and concerns about district oversight. The committee approved the motion 10-0. Next, staff presented the fiscal years 2027-2028 school district performance audit schedule, describing 26 randomly selected school districts and career and technical education districts, plus 84 planned follow-ups. The Auditor General said the schedule is intended to shorten the average time between audits and that the school audits division is now fully staffed. Members asked about county coverage and the inclusion of ESA accountability, but the schedule was ultimately presented for review rather than approval. The committee also heard a detailed federal compliance audit presentation on the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administered by DES. The Auditor General reported repeated findings involving missing provider documentation, questioned costs, and FFATA reporting errors, including a 2024 sample that led to questioning $2.88 million in costs. The office recommended stronger documentation, record retention, reporting procedures, and staff training; DES concurred and said it would correct the findings in 2026. Members discussed the limits of the single-audit scope, the possibility of a broader special audit, and the federal government’s recent actions on CCDF oversight in other states. Finally, the committee considered and discussed a special audit request for CCDF that would broaden review to provider oversight, licensing, site visits, and billing accuracy across multiple state agencies, with estimated costs of $547,000 to $625,000 and a projected report date of July 31, 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• approvals, all out-of-state approvals, all individual program approvals, as well as the approval of
• The approval of resource rooms and self-contained classrooms is a very different process than the other
• approvals, all out-of-state approvals, all individual program approvals, as well as the approval of
• The approval of resource rooms and self-contained classrooms is a very different process than the other
• than the other different process than the other approvals<01:10:09.840><c> and</c><01:10:09.960><c> we

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee heard testimony on HB 222, which would repeal the requirement that a chartered public school and the resident school district sign a memorandum of understanding on how students with disabilities will receive special education services. The prime sponsor, Rep. Peggy Balboni, said the bill was requested by the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators and the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools. She argued that federal and state law already require districts to provide FAPE and that the MOU requirement has created extra work, legal costs, and delays without improving services. She said many MOUs remain unsigned, but students are still receiving services and complaint numbers have not changed. Rep. Mooney also supported repeal, calling the MOU duplicative and impractical because IEPs and 504 plans already govern services. Testimony from Jane B. Brulu of the special education administrators’ association and Beth McLure of the charter schools alliance echoed that view, saying the MOU has not helped students, has added hours of work and legal fees, and has mostly been a source of disputes over funding and service costs. McLure said her school has worked with more than 15 districts and has always been able to reach agreements, though the first year of the requirement took substantial time and money. Committee members asked about the original purpose of the law, unsigned MOUs, and whether disputes could be resolved without the requirement. A representative from the Department of Education said the MOU was originally proposed to address reports that some students were not getting services on time and to provide some oversight, but the department has no authority to order charter schools or districts to agree and no appeal process if they cannot. The department also said it does not currently audit charter school special education services because it lacks authority to monitor charter schools directly, and it urged the committee to consider some alternative oversight if the MOU requirement is repealed. The hearing on HB 222 was then closed, and the committee announced it would begin the hearing on HB 699 after a short break.

Transcript Highlights:

• The FDA-approved, I think there's some products that are FDA-approved.
• Those were approved by U.S. EPA.
• Can the U.S.... ...process and part of what I said is incorrect, and the U.S. would will this approve
• If they get approved by the U.S. EPA, any conversion kit, as long as they get approved by U.S.
• This is a transferable process.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Transcript Highlights:

• They can add more, but they have to go through an approval process to get more sessions added to their
• They can add more, but they have to go through an approval process to get more sessions added to their
• </c><00:14:15.880><c> process</c><00:14:16.800><c> to</c><00:14:17.680><c> at</c> to go through an approval
• process to at to go through an approval process to at to<00:14:18.160><c> get</c><00:14:18.279><c> more
• </c><00:28:48.200><c> by</c> approved that are you know approvable by approved that are you know approvable

Committees: Senate Health and Human Services , Senate Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Disease, but fewer than 5% have an FDA-approved treatment.
• process.
• The test or treatment ultimately gets approved.
• So, you know, if something's already approved, this bill is really about something that's already approved
• We went through the same process again with no help.

Summary: The committee heard AB 1887, which would speed prior authorization for FDA-approved rare disease treatments prescribed by specialists and, if a plan does not act within 30 days, deem the request approved. The author and supporters, including patients and clinicians, said delays can cause irreversible harm, hospitalizations, and death, especially for children and people with progressive rare diseases. Health plans and insurers opposed the bill’s automatic-approval provision and said the measure lacked safeguards for incomplete requests and shared responsibility for timely information. The chair encouraged continued work with opponents, and the author said the bill was narrowed from an earlier version that would have waived prior authorization entirely. The committee also heard AB 1979 on artificial intelligence in health care, AB 2161 on Medi-Cal work requirements, AB 539 on extending approved prior authorizations, AB 2311 on physician employment at public hospital districts, AB 1148 on banning phthalates and bisphenols in food packaging, AB 1825 on mental health offender reentry coordination, and AB 2282 on a temporary emergency stabilization unit in Patterson. AB 1979 would preserve licensed clinicians’ professional judgment, bar AI from directing unlicensed clinical functions, and protect medical records used by consumer chatbots; after amendments, several hospital, medical, and industry groups moved from opposition to neutral. AB 2161 would limit the harm of federal Medi-Cal work-reporting rules by using existing data, improving notices, and protecting due process; it drew broad support from patient, provider, and advocacy groups. AB 539 would keep prior authorization approvals valid for up to one year or the course of treatment, with supporters citing continuity of care and opponents warning about utilization, fraud, and cost concerns. AB 2311, as amended, would let certain high-payer-mix or distressed public health care districts directly employ physicians; CMA withdrew opposition after the bill was narrowed, while some hospital interests still objected to the carve-out. AB 1148 would prohibit two chemicals commonly used in food packaging, with supporters citing cancer and endocrine-disruption risks and opponents arguing DTSC should handle the issue through its existing regulatory process. AB 1825 would improve transition planning and Medi-Cal enrollment for offenders with mental health disorders leaving state hospitals, and AB 2282 would authorize a temporary rural emergency stabilization care unit in Patterson until a permanent hospital is built. Several bills were held for later action because the committee lacked a quorum, and the chair repeatedly noted that motions would be taken once enough members returned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing about that process will be helpful.
• In November, the board approved a plan.
• The appeal process has the same shape.
• The board approves strategic documents.
• There is process. There are permits.

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on the Board of Environmental Safety (BES), created by SB 158 in 2021, and on broader DTSC reform efforts, including permitting, community engagement, fee setting, and the hazardous waste management plan. Chair Connolly opened by noting the board’s original goals of improving transparency, accountability, and fiscal stability, and raised concerns about a recent board appointee later becoming a lobbyist with DTSC-regulated clients. Witnesses and members also discussed the long-delayed SB 673 regulations on facility permitting and community vulnerability protections, as well as the board’s role in approving the hazardous waste management plan and reviewing permit appeals. Community and environmental justice witnesses argued that the board has improved access by creating a public forum, ombudsperson, and appeal process, but said it remains too passive and lacks authority over budgets, staffing, and implementation. They urged more statutory direction, stronger community participation, better transparency on how comments are used, and more meaningful authority in permit and plan decisions. One witness suggested the Legislature consider a separate oversight body or stronger legislative engagement, while another called for youth representation and paid fellowships on advisory bodies. Business and regulated-community testimony was more supportive of the board’s structure, emphasizing that SB 158 was a negotiated compromise that improved transparency and accountability while avoiding politicization, and calling for faster fee analysis and clearer budget information. Board Chair Andrew Rakestra and DTSC Director Barbara Butler reported that reform has produced measurable gains: more public engagement, stronger enforcement, fewer continued permits, improved compliance, increased revenues from the generation-and-handling fee, and progress on Exide cleanup, safer consumer products, and community revitalization grants. They acknowledged, however, that the board’s authority is limited, permit appeals can be slow, SB 673 regulations remain unfinished, and public trust still needs work. Both said the board is most effective when involved early and when DTSC shares information proactively. Members asked about fee stability, the hazardous waste management plan, and whether the Legislature should give the board a more formal role in budget change proposals, regulatory processes, and implementation oversight. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The gentleman's motion is approved. The gentleman's motion is approved. Gentlemen from Green.
• They have a fairly manual process where they're tracking tax deductions.
• The gentleman's motion is approved. Gentleman from Washington: Mr.
• same bylaws governing that process.
• With the same bylaws governing that process. it always has. Yes.

Transcript Highlights:

• It provides clarification relating to multi-phase projects for a pre-plat approval process, which was
• But I'm bringing it back, and it isn't a new bill in the sense of the process or the thought process,
• Projects approved under the public hearing process must be within or abutting an urban service area,
• Require a building official to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a building permit within five
• We have that process in place.

Bills: S0014 , S0016 , S0024 , S0168 , S0288 , S0548 , S0686 , S0830 , S1138 , S1234

Committee: Senate Community Affairs

Keywords: negligence, settlement, police conduct, municipal liability, personal injury, compensation, injuries, Miami-Dade County, rural electric cooperatives, energy production, Florida law, energy tariffs, regulation, impact fees, transportation capacity, local government, interlocal agreements, growth management, community planning, extraordinary circumstances

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, so with whose approval? The approval would exist at the Department of Commerce.
• The speaker said that if the waiver is approved in August, they will begin the sub-award closeout process
• There's no detailed approval process for the money today. Correct. Okay. Thank you.
• They're taking applications, approving or denying applications as appropriate, and processing renewals
• finish out the process.

Committee: All ALC-HOSPITAL, MEDICAID, & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE

Transcript Highlights:

• be approved unless the county can demonstrate why an approval of the project would not be appropriate
• </c> exemptions within 30 days and to process exemptions within 30 days and to process the<00:04:33.520
• </c> county within 120 days shall be approved county within 120 days shall be approved unless<00:04:44.800
• ><c> an</c> A county agency processing an A county agency processing an application<00:15:06.639><c>
• </c> application is being processed. application is being processed.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing heard and then took action on a series of housing-related bills concerning HHFDC, HPHA, inclusionary zoning, nonprofit housing trusts, housing project exemptions, the rental housing revolving fund, and a new for-sale housing program. Testimony was generally supportive from HHFDC and HPHA, with additional support from groups such as Hawaii YIMBY, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Hawaii Appleseed, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Holo Collaborative, the Kobayashi Group, and others. On SB 2424, the Kobayashi Group argued the bill would help open housing to a broader pool of local households, including buyers slightly above income limits who still cannot afford market-rate housing. On SB 2342, the chair asked HHFDC for final figures on rental housing revolving fund appropriations since 2016 and was told the amount was about $1.1 billion, including conveyance tax revenue. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage of SB 2189 with amendments, noting concerns about transparency and accountability in HHFDC’s loan-award process; SB 2190 with amendments; SB 2234 with amendments; SB 2177 with amendments; SB 2194 unamended; SB 2342 with amendments; SB 2060 with amendments; and SB 2070 with amendments. The committee deferred SB 2195 and SB 2196 after testimony comments, and deferred SB 2063 because the chair said SB 2060 would be used instead as the vehicle for mixed-income subaccount changes. SB 2424 was discussed in hearing but then deferred in decision-making pending legal advice on issues including owner-occupancy, county income restrictions, buyback rules, and county council approval. The committee also heard testimony on SB 2062 and its proposed SD1, but deferred that measure because the relevant changes had already been incorporated into SB 2060 SD1.

Transcript Highlights:

• and the board lacked a quality control process to ensure staff evaluated and appropriately approved
• board lacked a quality control process to ensure staff evaluated and appropriately approved.
• The board lacked a quality control process to ensure staff evaluated and appropriately approved only
• First, we approved 3,903 new exam applications within an average processing time of just three business
• Can you tell me about the process now? Madam Chair, yes.” “Can you tell me about the process now?

Committee: Senate Senate Regulatory Affairs & Government Efficiency Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee first heard the Arizona Auditor General’s 2025 sunset review of the Arizona Barbering and Cosmetology Board. The audit found the board generally processed licenses and complaints timely and had adopted required school curriculum rules, but it also identified inconsistent disciplinary actions, gaps in required infection-prevention and law education for some reciprocity and instructor applicants, weak application review controls, and noncompliance issues involving open meeting law, public records, and conflicts of interest. Auditors also recommended statutory changes on esthetics scope of practice, cease-and-desist authority, and eyelash technician training standards. The board’s executive director said the agency agreed with the findings, had already implemented some changes including updated disciplinary parameters, conflict-of-interest training, lawful presence verification, and revised cash-handling procedures, and was working through the remaining recommendations. After questions, the committee voted 7-0 to recommend the board implement the audit recommendations and be continued for six years, until July 1, 2032. The committee then took up the combined sunset review and performance audit of the Arizona Department of Gaming, the Arizona Racing Commission, and the Arizona Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Commission. The Auditor General reported that while the department distributed tribal gaming funds and issued some licenses appropriately, it failed to consistently obtain and review required independent audit reports for event wagering and fantasy sports operators, did not fully comply with conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements, lacked comprehensive complaint-handling processes, and had delayed some compact trust fund distributions. Additional issues included IT security documentation, horse-racing suitability checks, fee-setting reviews, rulemaking, and public records procedures; the Boxing and MMA Commission also had licensing and fee-setting deficiencies. The department and commissions agreed to implement the recommendations, and the department director said the agency was already making changes, including updated guidance to operators, a new complaint-tracking process, conflict-of-interest training, and work on trust fund distributions and rule changes. Committee members pressed both the auditor and the department on why fantasy sports audit reviews had not been completed, whether underpayments would be recovered, and why no distributions had yet been made to certain Category 3 tribes under the 2021 compact trust fund. The director said the department was now doing a look-back review, would seek any owed fees, penalties, and interest, and was helping tribes resolve the baseline-revenue formula needed for distributions. Members also asked about conflict-of-interest practices, problem gambling, and whether prediction markets fall under gaming regulation. The discussion continued into the department’s broader presentation, with the director describing the agency’s regulatory role and ongoing modernization efforts.

Transcript Highlights:

• I recommend approval of these items.
• Seeing no objection, the motion is approved. Thank you all so much.” “Motion is approved.
• It's processing retirements, processing benefit payments, everything you would imagine related to that
• It's processing retirements, processing benefit payments, everything you would imagine related to that
• Seeing no objection, the motion is approved. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Motions approved.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget met on February 19, 2026, and first received unchanged fiscal status and five-year baseline budget reports from the Office of Planning and Budget; the fiscal status statement was approved without objection, and the baseline budget required no action. The committee then approved a request from Facility Planning and Control to add five higher education deferred maintenance projects to the eligible list under Act 751, and reviewed four change orders over $50,000 for informational purposes only. Members approved the Louisiana Lottery Corporation’s fiscal year 2026-2027 operating budget after testimony highlighted projected gross revenue of $610 million, 29 years without legislative auditor findings, and continued support for the MFP. The committee also approved, en bloc, the operating budgets for LASERS, the Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana, the School Employees’ Retirement System, and the State Police Retirement System. Retirement officials described modest budget increases or decreases, strong investment performance, and ongoing efforts to reduce unfunded liabilities; members discussed the impact of surplus payments toward UAL debt and the possibility of future COLAs, including a 2% COLA if the legislature reaches the required two-thirds vote. The committee approved payment of $20,262.32 in prior-year deputy sheriff supplemental pay expenditures from the current-year budget. It also approved several legislative intent clarifications for prior appropriations, including changes involving Tangipahoa Parish, Harahan, Allen Parish, Morgan City, and DeSoto Parish School System-related funding. In addition, the Water Sector Commission’s recommendation for $2.8 million in additional funding for four ongoing water and sewer projects was approved. The remaining items were reviewed without action: an RTI International contract extension for DEQ air-quality filter weighing, amendments to four Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism marketing contracts to extend and supplement funding, and the fifth-year amendment to the Office of Risk Management’s Sedgwick claims administration contract, valued at $21.1 million. The meeting adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• And point six... ...permits approved or denied that quarter.
• This bill will bring much needed transparency and predictability to the housing approval process by requiring
• And then it also comes down to approving and denying.
• And then it also comes down to approving and denying.
• And then it also comes down to approving and denying.

Committee: House House Rural Development, Land Grants And Cultural Affairs

Summary: The committee first took up HB 110, as amended by a committee substitute, which would require quarterly public reporting of housing development and permitting data by Class A counties and municipalities over a population threshold. The sponsor and supporters said the bill is intended to improve transparency, identify bottlenecks in housing approvals, and help policymakers and developers understand permitting timelines and staffing needs. Support came from home builders, realtors, economic development, housing advocates, and some local officials, who argued that consistent data would help address New Mexico’s housing shortage and support better policy decisions. Opponents, mainly from the Municipal League and several smaller cities, argued the bill was an unfunded mandate, a step toward state preemption of local control, and a burden on municipal staff; they also warned it could expand to smaller communities later. Committee members raised concerns about rural impacts, the lack of penalties in the bill, whether the data already exists and could be obtained voluntarily, and what the state would do with the information after collection. The sponsor said the bill was only a reporting measure, not a preemption bill, and that the data would help identify where resources or staffing support are needed. During discussion, the sponsor agreed to amendments discussed with the Vice Chair to raise the population threshold from 30,000 to 40,000 and add a five-year sunset, which would remove several smaller municipalities from coverage. The committee then voted 4-3 to give the committee substitute a do pass recommendation, with the bill itself receiving a do not pass recommendation; several members explained their votes by emphasizing either support for the data effort or concern about mandates and future expansion. The committee then heard HM 24, which asks the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty Division of the Department of Justice and the Land Grant Council to study the potential consequences of restructuring the Las Vegas land grant. The sponsor and witnesses explained that the Las Vegas land grant is uniquely managed through the Fourth Judicial District Court and that the memorial would help explore the historical basis for that arrangement and possible paths toward greater autonomy. Supporters said the study could help the land grant move toward independent governance and clarify procedures and policies. The committee approved the memorial on a do pass motion without opposition, and the meeting adjourned afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• The process is really laid out in statute, and we have to follow that entire process, which is...
• The process is really laid out in statute, and we have to follow that entire process, which is going
• I just point back to the process.
• SB 1034 changed the law and the process and provided the specific process that must be followed in order
• it gets approved by the court.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee held an oversight hearing on the state auditor’s October 2024 report on California’s Forensic Conditional Release Program (CONREP) for sexually violent predators. Members and witnesses discussed public safety, the long delays in finding community housing, the role of local housing committees, and the Department of State Hospitals’ oversight of Liberty Healthcare, which operates much of the program. Several legislators from rural and high-desert districts said their communities have been disproportionately affected by placements and questioned why many placements end up in remote areas. State Auditor Grant Parks said the audit found that CONREP participants were convicted of new offenses less often than sexually violent predators who were unconditionally released, but that 18 of 56 participants had been revoked and returned to state hospitals for noncompliance. He said it took an average of 17 months to place current participants in the community, with 20 additional people awaiting placement for an average of 20 months, and that the program incurred significant pre-placement costs. Parks also said local officials were often unclear about their role, DSH had not given clear guidance at the time of the audit, and California lacks a transitional housing option used in some other states. He reported that DSH had implemented four of the five audit recommendations, while declining the recommendation to explore state-owned transitional housing. DSH Director Stephanie Clendendon and Liberty representative Ken Carabello defended the program as a court-ordered, highly supervised treatment model intended to reduce reoffending and support reintegration. They said DSH is actively involved in placement review, that Liberty searches countywide under statutory restrictions, and that community feedback and court approval are part of the process. DSH said it has now implemented guidance for housing committee designees, formal program reviews, an outcome tracker, and an analysis of whether to separate some Liberty services into different contracts. DSH continued to oppose transitional housing, arguing it would not solve the core siting and statutory problems and would add cost. Several members remained critical, arguing the program is broken, costly, and unfairly concentrated in certain communities, and some called for major statutory changes or suspension of the program.

Transcript Highlights:

• They were developed in the ratification process.
• They were developed in the ratification process.
• The legislative ratification process took a sort of a glide path.
• The legislative ratification process took a sort of a glide path.
• First of all, they have not gone through the entire process. But, as Mr.

Summary: The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee met on February 3, 2025, with a quorum present and took up three main items. First, the committee considered a large set of recommended objections to Agency for Health Care Administration rules, all centered on sunset provisions stating the rules would expire after five years. AHCA asked for another deferral while it reviewed the rules, arguing the sunset language was a form of self-restraint rather than an invalid exercise of rulemaking authority. Committee leadership disagreed that further delay would resolve the issue and moved to a single vote covering all objections. The motion passed by roll call, and the committee informed AHCA that an objection would be filed unless the agency amended the rules within 30 days. The committee then heard an informational briefing from the Department of Environmental Protection on its Outstanding Florida Springs rule and stormwater rule. DEP explained that it did not prepare a statement of estimated regulatory cost for the springs rule because the proposed standards largely mirror existing water management district rules and the Central Florida Water Initiative framework, so DEP said there was no new regulatory burden. Members asked about permit authority, costs, and whether the rules were functionally different from prior rules. DEP maintained the rules set minimum standards and did not add costs beyond what regulated parties were already doing. DEP also described implementation of the stormwater rule adopted under the 2020 Clean Waterways Act and later ratified by the Legislature in 2024. DEP said the rule was the product of years of workshops and technical advisory committee meetings, and that the final version included lower-cost alternatives, grandfathering, and phased implementation. DEP estimated the rule’s cost at about $2,600 per acre in the revised CERC, while industry witnesses said the real cost could be much higher, especially if land costs are included. A home builders representative argued the estimate understated impacts, while a stormwater engineer said the rule gives more flexible, performance-based tools and could become more cost-effective over time. Finally, Senator Graal presented proposed Chapter 120 changes in SB 108, aimed at tightening and modernizing rulemaking. The proposal would require five-year rule reviews, annual agency reporting, faster notice of proposed rulemaking after authorizing legislation, electronic filing, public access to incorporated materials, clearer tracking of technical changes, and limits on how long rules can remain pending ratification. Members discussed whether the Legislature should be more specific in statutes about rulemaking deadlines and whether agencies should be more accountable when rules stall. No formal action was taken on the Chapter 120 proposals, and the committee adjourned after discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• And, you know, why have this big process for something that we already know is going to be approved?
• process elsewhere.
• We are not on pace, and one of the main reasons for that is California's slow process of approving homes
• This is a process bill. That's about process streamlining and time is money.
• This is a process bill. That's about process streamlining and time is money.

Summary: The committee began without a quorum and operated briefly as a subcommittee while the chair outlined public comment procedures and the consent calendar. The first major item was AB 1751, a townhome/homeownership measure by Assembly Members Quirk-Silva and Wicks. The author accepted amendments to strike the bill’s wage provision and to limit unit size and project size, but declined other proposed amendments on downzoning, demolition protections, and site restrictions. Supporters, including the New California Coalition and California Conference of Carpenters, argued the bill would expand attainable homeownership and create more townhome sites; opponents and “opposed unless amended” witnesses raised concerns about renter protections, demolition/displacement, density impacts, and local control. Several labor groups and local government representatives were neutral or supportive of the amended bill, while the committee members discussed the tension between housing production and worker protections. The committee ultimately passed AB 1751 as amended to the Senate Committee on Local Government on a roll call vote, with the bill held on call for absent members. The committee then heard AB 750, which expands HCD’s Portfolio Reinvestment Program to more at-risk affordable housing developments needing rehabilitation. The author and supporters from the California Housing Consortium and California Housing Partnership said the bill would help preserve deed-restricted housing facing expiring affordability restrictions and disrepair, especially when paired with anticipated bond funding. Members asked about the program’s prior funding and how it works to keep units affordable through rehabilitation rather than state takeover; the author emphasized the goal was preservation of existing affordable housing stock. AB 750 passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee on a roll call vote and was held on call for absent senators. The consent calendar was also approved on call. Next, the committee heard AB 306, which would create a more workable statewide appeals and code-interpretation process at the California Building Standards Commission for local building code decisions. The author and supporters from AIA California and the Housing Action Coalition said the bill would reduce inconsistent interpretations across 540 jurisdictions, improve transparency, and support housing innovation while preserving local authority over local matters. Members discussed how the bill would interact with local amendments and alternative methods and means, and the committee moved the bill to the Senate Committee on Local Government on a roll call vote. AB 2612, directing HCD and the Building Standards Commission to develop standards for plug-in photovoltaic systems in new construction, also advanced to Appropriations after supportive testimony and brief questions about safety standards and stakeholder consultation. AB 1070, which orders a study on allowing 3- to 10-unit missing-middle housing under the Residential Code and requires a one-time report on code-related cost pressures, passed to Appropriations after building officials removed opposition. Later, AB 2181, a narrow bill concerning hotel and motel valuation and density bonus potential, passed to Local Government after testimony from Unite Here and others about protecting hospitality jobs and preventing speculative appraisals. Finally, AB 1237, clarifying safety rules for private in-unit pools in hotels and condominiums, passed to Health after the author described added safety measures such as pool covers, alarms, emergency devices, certified operators, and AEDs.

Transcript Highlights:

• see fit, as long as they get federal approval.
• I also just want to provide a quick federal approval timeline.
• process?
• So it's a negotiated process, and typically, in my experience, you wouldn't receive an approval until
• So it's a negotiated process, and typically, in my experience, you wouldn't receive an approval until

Summary: The committee received a briefing from AHCA Deputy Secretary Brian Meyer and Florida Healthy Kids CMO Ashley Carr on implementation of HB 121, which was enacted in 2023 to expand Florida’s KidCare/CHIP eligibility from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty level and replace the sharp premium “benefits cliff” with a tiered premium glide path. Sponsor Rep. Bartleman described the bill as a bipartisan effort to help working families keep children insured while moving toward economic self-sufficiency. The presenters explained that the program remains a joint federal-state structure, with Medicaid unchanged and the bill affecting only the CHIP-related portions of KidCare. AHCA said implementation has been delayed by federal CMS actions. The agency reported that CMS first rejected a state plan amendment approach, then required revisions to the premium tiers under a new maintenance-of-effort interpretation, and later issued a new interpretation of continuous 12-month eligibility that would prevent disenrollment for nonpayment of premiums. AHCA said it submitted an 1115 waiver, but negotiations over special terms and conditions reached an impasse, and the state has filed litigation challenging CMS’s interpretation. Members asked about the cost of litigation, the effect on future bills, the review process for CMS documents, disenrollment and reenrollment rules, and whether any additional legislative action is needed; AHCA said no further state action is needed at this time and that the key issue is the pending federal litigation. Several members and the sponsor emphasized the need for immediate implementation and asked about possible interim relief. AHCA said current coverage remains in place under the preexisting program, that there is a 30-day grace period for premium payment, and that reenrollment does not require a penalty or back payment, though coverage is not active during lapsed periods. The committee also heard public comment from Nicholas Hessing of the Children’s Services Council of Broward County and the Florida Alliance of Children’s Councils and Trusts, who supported HB 121 and said the expansion could make about 17,600 additional children eligible in Broward County alone. The meeting ended with Rep. Bartleman thanking staff and expressing hope that the new federal administration would allow the program to move forward, and the chair adjourned the meeting.