Transcript Highlights:

• As both the analysis of this committee states and the analysis of the Judiciary Committee states, this
• The committee analysis handles that point really well.
• Anyone else here in support of this legislation?
• The analysis does an excellent job of summarizing.
• In leading up to this bill, the analysis includes a chart.

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee heard several bills on AI, social media, rental cars, and account deletion. AB 316 by Assemblymember Krell would bar defendants from avoiding liability by claiming an AI system autonomously caused harm. Supporters argued it would preserve accountability as AI grows more powerful, especially in cases involving children, while opponents said existing tort law already covers these issues and warned the bill could create uncertainty and overbroad liability. The bill passed the committee 8-1. AB 656 by Assemblymember Schiavo, sponsored by Consumer Federation of California, would make it easier for users to delete social media accounts and personal information, with amendments shifting the deletion prompt into settings rather than on every screen. Supporters said platforms use dark patterns and make deletion unnecessarily difficult; opponents raised concerns about unintended deletions and possible conflicts with existing privacy law, though the author said the bill was being aligned with CCPA. The bill passed 9-0. The committee also approved the consent calendar. AB 1197 by Assemblymember Calderon would address rental car theft and misuse by allowing limited geofencing in specific situations and revising rules around renter liability when keys are returned and a police report is filed. Rental car companies and other supporters said the bill would help recover stolen or abandoned vehicles, while an opponent warned about privacy and possible consumer harms in edge cases. The bill passed 11-0. AB 1374 by Assemblymember Berman would require more upfront disclosure of the total price of rental cars, including mandatory fees, to curb hidden charges; supporters said consumers still face surprise costs, while opponents argued current law already requires disclosure and that the bill’s new wording could invite litigation. It passed 13-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before we get started, I want to make sure everyone knows that this meeting is streaming on the legislative
• of Administrative Services are going to give us an overview of the analysis they've done and a draft
• For the record, Chris Allenach, Legislative Revenue Office.
• direct impacts analysis of fishing and hunting as an outdoor recreation activity.
• And as you saw in the document, that's excluded from this analysis.

Summary: The Financial Estimate Committee met on July 6, 2026, to begin work on the financial estimate for IP 28, after reviewing the statutory process and confirming that only IP 28 had cleared the signature threshold for consideration. Staff explained the committee’s duties under ORS 250.125 and the timeline for draft statements, public hearing, and final adoption. The committee also designated Carol Moreno C. Fuentes to file the committee’s eventual statements. Staff from the Department of Administrative Services and the Legislative Revenue Office presented preliminary analysis of IP 28, describing major uncertainties in estimating impacts because the measure is not a tax law change and would affect multiple industries and government functions. Preliminary figures discussed included an estimated $56.5 million loss in the current biennium and $6.7 million in reduced expenditures, with larger projected revenue losses of roughly $244.1 million to $258 million and reduced expenditures of $30.7 million to $34.9 million in 2027–29, plus $87.8 million to $88.3 million in increased expenditures. Analysts said the biggest effects would likely involve agriculture, fish and wildlife, hunting and fishing, local government enforcement, and possible shifts in state funding, but many impacts remained difficult to quantify. Committee members raised concerns about local government costs, law enforcement and prosecution burdens, impacts on the hospitality and recreation sectors, possible effects on tribal governments and treaty rights, and whether the measure would affect shellfish and crabbing. They also discussed the Humane Transition Fund, subsidies, possible litigation costs, and whether the statement should include broader uncertainty language and multiple scenarios. Members generally agreed the draft should be revised to better reflect uncertainty, clarify assumptions, and possibly use bullets or other formatting to improve readability. No vote was taken. The committee agreed to treat the current draft as a working version, with staff to revise it based on the discussion and return an updated draft before the next meeting scheduled for July 17 at 2 p.m., with both in-person and virtual participation available.

Transcript Highlights:

• may be provided by applicable executive and legislative agencies.
• There's no legislator involvement. Nor partisan staff.
• Be directed in the budget or other legislation.
• Law, including legislation with a future implementation date.
• And for the legislative budgets...

Summary: The committee held its first meeting, with co-chairs and members introducing themselves and staff outlining the committee’s statutory mandate under the 2025-27 supplemental operating budget. Staff explained that the Joint Legislative-Executive Committee on Budget Transparency and Fiscal Sustainability will receive technical assistance from a nonpartisan organization, with work split into two phases: first on revenue growth, spending assumptions, and cost drivers in the four-year outlook, and later on staffing, overhead, performance management, and public reporting. Members broadly said they hoped the committee would build a shared factual understanding of the state’s fiscal situation, structural deficits, and budget processes, and identify a sustainable path forward for the operating budget. Staff then gave a detailed presentation on operating budget basics. They reviewed the size and composition of the operating budget, noting that most spending is concentrated in grants/client services and salaries/benefits, with K-12, DSHS, HCA, DCYF, DOC, and higher education making up most NGFO spending. They explained the distinction between constitutional, federal, statutory, and discretionary spending, using examples such as K-12, Medicaid, collective bargaining agreements, court-driven obligations like McCleary and Trueblood, and one-time appropriations. They also walked through how the state uses incremental budgeting, carry-forward and maintenance-level calculations, caseload and per-capita forecasting, and the four-year balanced budget outlook, including reserve calculations and the budget stabilization account. Members asked extensive questions about what is and is not included in the outlook, especially future collective bargaining agreements, health care and compensation growth, tort and other liabilities, and whether the state could better distinguish mandatory from discretionary spending. Staff explained that current CBAs and other already-enacted obligations are included, but future CBAs are not; some liabilities are reflected as expenditures when appropriated, while broader long-term liabilities are not fully captured in the outlook because they depend on future policy choices. Staff also noted that the legislature and ERFC can adopt assumptions such as reversions and growth factors, and that an outlook accuracy report is produced every five years to compare projected and actual maintenance-level spending. The committee agreed to follow up on some of the more complex liability and assumption questions. After a short break, Josh Goodman of the Pew Charitable Trusts began a presentation on Pew’s role and approach to state fiscal sustainability. He described Pew as a nonpartisan organization with long-standing state fiscal research, emphasizing its 50-state comparative data, interviews with state officials and experts, and focus on long-term sustainability, reserve policies, and recession preparedness. The presentation was ongoing when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• for the legislators.
• So you're not encasing in this piece of legislation a requirement that it be that the legislative...
• Not encasing in this piece of legislation a requirement that it be, that the legislation be pre-filed
• or analysis before it's submitted.
• Legislation.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The financial analysis of the bill finds minimal cost.
• As the staff analysis notes, there are no state costs to this bill.
• According to the analysis, this bill would have minor and absorbable costs.
• As the analysis notes, there are no state costs.
• As the analysis notes, there are no state costs.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee heard a large regular-order agenda and took up several bills with mostly brief presentations and no major debate. AB 2215 by Calderon would extend the time for the Department of Water Resources to fully develop State Water Project water rights to 2046; supporters said it would protect water reliability and affordability for 27 million Californians, while opponents argued it would bypass the Water Board process, set a precedent for other water-rights holders, and potentially enable costly projects like Delta Conveyance. The committee also approved a set of unanimous-support bills for consent and suspense-file measures, then moved through a series of policy bills with generally favorable testimony from sponsors and allied organizations. Among the bills discussed, AB 2038 would extend insurance protections for wildfire victims facing nonrenewal or cancellation of home insurance; AB 2322 would standardize the definition of commercial, industrial, or institutional sites for municipal stormwater permitting; AB 1794 would allow enteral nutrition formulas to be shipped directly to patients’ homes; AB 1696 would clarify that nurse midwives do not need physician supervision within their licensed scope; AB 1860 would let county offices of education use design-build and progressive design-build; AB 1876 would codify nondiscrimination protections in health care coverage; AB 2281 would direct the Office of Election Cybersecurity to consult with researchers and assess resources; AB 2448 would require technology to protect sensitive medical records, including reproductive health data; AB 1994 would require local law enforcement to provide victims information on federal immigration relief options; and AB 1829 would expand allowable uses of CalWORKs student-parent support funds for basic needs and related services. Testimony was largely in support, with a few targeted concerns raised on AB 1696 and AB 2281. The committee took roll-call votes on the bills presented and advanced them, with some members recorded as not voting or voting no on selected measures. It also approved the suspense calendar as read and then opened public comment on bills not presented that day; no members of the public came forward, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think according to the analysis we've...
• analysis?
• Yeah, but I mean, has there been any analysis of that?
• I think that analysis will allow the legislature to...
• And, you know, do I have analysis to prove that? No.

Summary: The hearing focused on oversight of AB 658 and the State Water Resources Control Board’s five-year temporary permits for groundwater recharge. Assembly Member Arambula and committee members discussed how the permits are intended to help capture high flows during wet periods, support SGMA implementation, and store water underground for later use. The State Water Board chair said the five-year permits have become an important tool, with seven five-year permits issued this season and over 43,000 acre-feet authorized, but noted that actual recharge depends on hydrology and that the board is open to improvements. Members and witnesses discussed several possible changes to make the program more effective: allowing a two-year delay before the five-year permit clock starts, codifying CEQA exemptions that have been used through executive order, and shifting from a public objection model to a public comment model to reduce delays. There was also discussion of water availability analyses, with some members asking whether the state could develop a broader statewide assessment to reduce consultant costs and make permitting more predictable. The board said such an effort would be large and costly, but could potentially save applicants money and improve consistency. District representatives described their experiences. Stockton East said the five-year permit was more cost-effective than repeated 180-day permits, but that the 90-20 methodology, consultant costs, and a burrowing owl survey condition made use difficult. Omaha-Hartnell Water District said its recharge work depends on simple, low-cost infrastructure and that five-year permits, CEQA reform, and lower upfront fees would help small districts. A consultant working with Scott Valley and Sierra Valley said five-year permits can work well in different basins, but local infrastructure, stakeholder coordination, streambed alteration agreements, and upstream flow constraints can limit recharge. Members also raised concerns about basin connectivity, downstream water rights, and the need to pair recharge with sustainable groundwater pumping and broader water storage planning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Just to introduce myself, I'll be brief on the merits of this legislation.
• I'm happy to share a copy of the analysis with you.
• I've got a copy of the analysis that reflects the originally filed bill, and then I'm happy to do analysis
• or work with our staff to do an analysis on the amended bill.
• We did not take down an analysis. Okay, thanks. Thank you.

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several insurance, financial regulation, and public safety bills. The most extensive discussion centered on SB 1656, a major Office of Insurance Regulation bill covering reciprocal insurers, rate transparency, data calls, cybersecurity notification, and stronger oversight of continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs). The sponsor and OIR described the bill as aimed at transparency and preventing insolvencies, especially after recent CCRC failures. CCRC residents and industry representatives testified both in support and in opposition, with supporters emphasizing resident protection and opponents warning about liens, reserve requirements, management-company regulation, and higher costs. After debate and assurances that problematic provisions would be refined, the committee adopted a delete-all amendment and then reported the bill favorably. The committee also passed SB 1658, which creates a public records framework for the uniform mitigation verification of inspection form database while protecting policyholders’ personal information; a clarifying amendment was adopted before the bill was reported favorably. SB 1612 on financial institutions was approved after a substitute amendment restored current limits on credit union investments and kept only reimbursement, not salary, authority for certain board members and officers. SB 1740, an insurance bill intended to reduce premiums and insurer insolvency risk, was amended to prioritize rate-decrease filings and prohibit claim denials based solely on AI, then reported favorably. Two public-safety bills also moved forward. SB 1212 on firefighter health and safety would update OSHA-related protections, address toxic exposure in gear, encourage safer replacement equipment, and support best practices and mental health resources; an amendment refined terminology and added related provisions, and the bill was reported favorably. SB 1184 on residual market insurers was amended to preserve existing consumer protections and disclosure rules for excess and surplus lines and to clarify Citizens-related appointment requirements before being reported favorably. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly noted ongoing stakeholder negotiations and intent to refine several bills further in later committee stops.

Transcript Highlights:

• For the duration of the 194th legislative session.
• When all legislators have been heard, we will then turn to individuals who will testify.
• Actual analysis shows that insurers choose to adjust premiums.
• Actual analysis shows that insurers choose to adjust premiums.
• And so I'm very grateful for giving me that, and a number of other legislators, that tour.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing on several health care bills focused primarily on autism services and kidney disease coverage. Committee chairs John Lawn and Cindy Friedman opened by outlining hearing procedures, testimony rules, and filing deadlines, and noted the hearing would be recorded and written testimony accepted. They said the day’s topics included affordability and access to behavioral health services, provider reimbursement, Medicare coverage for vulnerable populations, and MassHealth eligibility asset exemptions. A major portion of the hearing concerned House Bill 4623, which would add board-certified assistant behavior analysts (BCABAs) as a recognized mid-level supervisory role in the MassHealth reimbursement framework to help address long wait lists for autism spectrum disorder services. Representative Lisa Field, actuaries, clinicians, and autism service providers testified that the current two-tier model limits workforce capacity, contributes to long delays, and leaves families waiting months for care. Supporters said the bill could expand access, improve retention, and potentially reduce MassHealth costs, while also helping providers meet growing demand and new administrative requirements. The committee also heard testimony on House Bill 4425 and Senate Bill 2737, which would allow Massachusetts residents under 65 with end-stage renal disease to purchase Medigap coverage. Legislators, dialysis advocates, and patients described high out-of-pocket costs under Medicare, barriers to kidney transplant eligibility without secondary insurance, and the financial strain on patients and families. Testifiers said the change would affect about 846 residents, could modestly increase premiums, and might reduce Medicaid spending by preventing asset spend-downs. Senator Gomez and others spoke from personal experience with dialysis and transplant care. Finally, the committee heard testimony on House Bill 4353 and Senate Bill 2587, which would require regular data-driven review of MassHealth ABA reimbursement rates. Providers and association representatives argued that reimbursement has not kept pace with inflation, workforce shortages, accreditation costs, and new 2026 MassHealth policy requirements, and said the bills would improve transparency and ensure rates reflect the true cost of care. No votes were taken; the hearing concluded with the chairs thanking participants, inviting additional written testimony, and adjourning the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before the Texas Legislative Internship Program, I never...
• I never dreamed that I could one day be a legislator.
• But I don't want to use tragedy to pass harmful legislation.
• So this is good legislation.
• I assume we all are since we're legislators here.

Bills: SB15, SB35, SB290, SB1365, SB2568, SB18, SB427, SB1860, SB1864, SB2675, SB596, SB2858, SB3058, SB816, SB1163, SB1484, SB1898, SB1777, SB1802, SB2692, SB315, SB1585, SB1626, SB2058, SB2050, SB2105, SB2245, SB2764, SB2611, SB2497, SB2452, SB2243, SB1705, SB1244, SB1361, SB438, SB578, SB584, SB2690, SB2521, SB2487, SB2342, SB2063, SB125, SB2041, SB1962, SB1413, SB6, SB2878, SB13, SB30, SJR87, SB7, SB127, SB293, SB441, SB3059, SB57, SB512, SB1718, SB140, SB2055, SB2075, SB2018, SB1534, SB1567, SB785, SB1233, SB1580, SB1663, SB413, SB447, SB519, SB467, SB1579, SB1191, SB1021, SB1838, SB2807, SB2835, SB546, SB2121, SB2167, SB2024, SB1032, SB1049, SB1266, SB1400, SB1302, SB401, SB1596, SB1281, SB1242, SB1343, SB1346, SB2753, SB2221, SB1719, SB2177, SB552, SB646, SJR1, SB15, SB800, SB790, SB748, SB571, SB1957, SB1923, SB1896, SB1760, SB1335, SB2368, SB2477, SB2587, SB2972, SB2986, SB2965, SB1563, SB1467, SB1164, SB1137, SB614, SB705, SB961, SB918, SB955, SB869, SB850, SB863, SB1610, SB1055, SB2206, SB457, SB2337, SB1362, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB973, SB974, SB865, SB506, SB781, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB505, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB3073, SB2920, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB2460, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB2595, SB857, SB2501, SB66, SB268, SB331, SB618, SB414, SB1394, SB2425, SB898, SB993, SB442, SB735, SB784, SB2538, SB1919, SB1013, SB2215, SB2322, SB626, SB570, SB747, SB2183, SB673, SB1015, SB1447, SB1370, SB1784, SB1897, SB2873, SB2891, SB2933, SB2540, SB2681, SB2695, SB1965, SB2203, SB872, SB875, SB1030, SB1277, SB1730, SB1681, SB1152, SB2969, SB2747, SB2705, SB2541, SB1708, SB2080, SB2721, SB1986, SB2392, SB2539, SB2857, SB2799, SB2785, SB2782, SB1531, SB1927, SB1263, SB1098, SB35, SB290, SB1365, SB2568, SB18, SB427, SB1860, SB1864, SB2675, SB596, SB2858, SB3058, SB816, SB1163, SB1484, SB1898, SB1777, SB1802, SB2692, SB315, SB1585, SB1626, SB2058, SB2050, SB2105, SB2245, SB2764, SB2611, SB2497, SB2452, SB2243, SB1705, SB1244, SB1361, SB438, SB578, SB584, SB2690, SB2521, SB2487, SB2342, SB2063, SB125, SB2041, SB1962, SB1413, SCR9, SB21, SB1198, SB1405, SB2601, SB2778, HB5560, HB762, HB1584, HB 107, HB 114, HB138, HB4386, HB2495, HB581, HB3348, HB5323, HB4341, HB6, HB171, HB143, HB449, HB3486, HB4263, HB5246, HB2, HB2011, SB17

Keywords: SB 15, Texas Local Government Code, zoning preemption, housing affordability, small lots, lot size, lot density, single-family zoning, residential subdivision, municipal land use, local control, state preemption, parking requirements, setbacks, infill development, missing middle housing, lot width, lot depth, homebuilders, housing supply

Transcript Highlights:

• this is an analysis of contingency or this is an analysis of what's<00:47:18.480> needed<00:47
• bill after the Senate bill that analysis bill after the Senate bill that analysis is<00:51:04.799
• <01:07:20.520> uh own act independent actes analysis uh own act independent actes analysis
• proposed legislation.
• The legislation that is on the table, as well as the proposed legislation, we did have a few comments

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But I want to give you a clear legislative intent.
• I'm happy to share a copy of the analysis with you.
• I've got a copy of the analysis that reflects the originally filed bill, and then I'm happy to do analysis
• or work with our staff to do an analysis on the amended bill.
• We did not take down an analysis. Okay, thanks. Thank you.

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several insurance, financial regulation, and public safety bills. SB 1656, a large Office of Insurance Regulation bill, was taken up with a delete-all amendment and extensive discussion. The bill would increase transparency in insurance rates and mitigation data, update reciprocal insurer rules, limit use-and-file rate filings, expand cybersecurity breach notification, and strengthen oversight of continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs). Residents and senior advocates generally supported stronger oversight to prevent bankruptcies like the Unison case, while CCRC operators and industry groups warned that lien authority, reserve requirements, and other provisions could raise borrowing costs and burden well-run communities. The committee adopted the delete-all amendment and then reported the bill favorably after debate and public testimony. The committee also passed SB 1658 on the public records database for uniform mitigation verification forms, with a clarifying amendment protecting policyholders’ personal information. SB 1612 on financial institutions was reported favorably after an amendment and substitute amendment dealing with credit union investment limits and reimbursement rules for board members. SB 1740, an insurance bill aimed at reducing premiums and insolvency risk, was amended to prioritize rate-decrease filings and prohibit AI as the sole basis for claim denials; it was then reported favorably. SB 1212 on firefighter health and safety was amended to add occupational disease language and other firefighter protections, including safer gear, cancer prevention, and possible telehealth mental health services, and was also reported favorably. Finally, SB 1184 on residual market insurers was amended to preserve existing excess-and-surplus line standards, strengthen consumer disclosures, and clarify Citizens-related appointment rules before being reported favorably. Throughout the meeting, committee members repeatedly noted that several bills were still being refined with stakeholders, and multiple public witnesses testified in support of or opposition to the CCRC and insurance provisions, focusing on resident protection, financial stability, and unintended cost impacts.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 402 supports that mission, and we thank Senator Valadares for championing this legislation.
• Also highlight I think the committee analysis does a very good job with citing all of the prior legislation
• Many of those pieces of legislation did not come to this committee and so the intent of this legislation
• I want to thank you and your staff for the analysis.
• There are no amendments in the analysis but the analysis does raise a few potential areas to work on

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I support the legislation.
• I'm looking at the analysis here on the FIR, and it takes from the agency analysis from Indian Affairs
• No legislative body.
• No legislative body.
• I just know from the analysis and reading all the different analysis that they're saying that this is

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• On slide 43, there's a trend analysis here.
• This is recommended analysis by the Pew Charitable Trust, and it also is a companion analysis to the
• Okay, moving on to stress testing and trend analysis.
• So what analysis do you have? to make a bullet like that.
• Have you guys started doing any type of analysis around that I suspect there will be legislation addressing

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then the analysis is done on the data that's been entered.
• So I guess I'm trying to ask and just trying to make it apparent to legislators that costs go up.
• at the real live, real time... ...do an analysis based on that.
• But, you know, we're going to proceed with our cost analysis this and our. grant.
• we're going to proceed with our cost analysis and our market rate survey.

Summary: The Early Childhood Committee met to receive an update from the Office of Early Childhood on Arkansas child care and early learning programs. Committee members discussed the state’s child care crisis, including reported economic losses from lack of access, the need to track access, affordability, workforce shortages, rural and infant/toddler care gaps, and the role of local leads in identifying needs across the state. The committee also approved the February 17 minutes. Office of Early Childhood staff explained their responsibilities under the LEARNS Act, including kindergarten readiness, provider quality, and access to affordable seats. They reviewed licensing, quality efforts, and the two main funding streams: School Readiness Assistance (SRA), a federally funded voucher program serving about 14,600 children with a wait list of more than 3,000, and Arkansas Better Chance (ABC), a state-funded program serving about 23,000 children, with approval to increase to 24,000 slots. Members asked about the difference between market rate surveys and cost analyses, and staff said the office is procuring both, with results expected by the end of the year. Several members raised concerns about funding levels, especially that ABC reimbursement has not kept pace with K-12 funding increases and that child care reimbursement remains below the true cost of care. Staff said ABC requires certified teachers and lower ratios than SRA, but pays less, and that some federal pre-K slots were moved into ABC to preserve continuity of care. They also explained that SRA eligibility changes, including a higher work requirement and ending a child care worker eligibility category, were made to reduce spending and serve families on the wait list. The committee discussed communication with providers and parents, technical assistance for centers, and possible future legislative action to stabilize providers and expand access, but no votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Piece of legislation.
• Some very conflicting sorts of fiscal analysis, industry stakeholder analysis, suggesting much higher
• I'll look forward, if and as it moves forward, to additional Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) analysis
• So this legislation...
• legislative resolution.

Transcript Highlights:

• The toll rates used for analysis were correct.
• and traffic and revenue analysis.
• That's exactly the diversion analysis.
• That's exactly the diversion analysis. And then finally, That's exactly the diversion analysis.
• I have comments, legislators and members of the committee.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Interstate 5 Bridge met remotely with Washington legislative members to receive updates on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, including environmental review, cost and funding, tolling, and procurement for construction. Program staff said the final supplemental environmental impact statement was published in April 2026, with a federal record of decision expected in early summer. They described the recommended design as a single-level fixed-span bridge, centered I-5 alignment, C Street ramps, one auxiliary lane in each direction, and dispersed park-and-ride parking. Members raised concerns about transparency, the closed chat function, and the decision not to include two auxiliary lanes; staff said the one-lane option was recommended through consultation with partner agencies and analysis, but the final decision would come with the record of decision. Staff also said the diversion analysis projected less than 3% traffic diversion to I-205 in 2045, though members from Oregon and Washington expressed concern about impacts to their communities and asked for more detail on mitigation and decision-making. The committee also reviewed a major cost update. Staff said the full five-mile program is now estimated at $13.5 billion to $15.2 billion, with a likely cost of $14.4 billion, up from a 2022 estimate of $5 billion to $7.5 billion, citing inflation, schedule delays, scope changes, and more detailed risk modeling. They said the first funded phase has been reduced to a $5.68 billion package focused on the Columbia River bridge replacement, connections to I-5, Hayden Island and SR-14, bridge demolition, tolling infrastructure, and advancing light rail design. Funding for that phase was described as $5.69 billion, including $2.1 billion federal funds, $1 billion from each state, and $1.5 billion in projected toll revenue. Members asked what would happen if costs rise further; staff said the estimate includes substantial contingency, the project will use progressive design-build to manage risk, and the team will continue updating the finance plan annually. A separate tolling and traffic-revenue presentation explained that four toll scenarios were analyzed using regional travel demand modeling, a toll diversion model, and a post-processing review. All scenarios assume pre-completion tolling beginning July 1, 2028, a 50% low-income discount for eligible users, and exemptions for tribal preemptions, emergency vehicles, maintenance vehicles, and organized militia. Staff said the low-income discount would affect about 4% to 6% of annual transactions and reduce annual revenues by roughly 2% to 3%. They said Scenario 2 was used for the financial analysis and is sufficient to support the $1.5 billion toll contribution in the funded phase. Members asked about toll collection costs, revenue impacts of the discount, and how the scenarios differed; staff said collection costs are expected to be in line with other WSDOT toll facilities, but exact costs are not yet set because toll rates are not final. Finally, WSDOT staff outlined procurement and delivery steps for construction. They said WSDOT will be the lead contracting agency, using progressive design-build, with a request for qualifications targeted for early July 2026, a request for proposals in October, contractor selection in April 2027, construction starting in 2028, and tolling beginning in 2028. Staff said the approach is intended to consolidate scope, reduce interface risk, and allow transparent negotiation with an independent cost estimator, while preserving an off-ramp if a fair price cannot be reached. Members asked for more detail on timing, cost allocation, and the share of the first phase funded by tolls; staff estimated tolls account for about 26% of the first phase cost.

Transcript Highlights:

• The financial analysis of the bill finds minimal cost.
• As the staff analysis notes, there are no state costs to this bill.
• According to the analysis, this bill would have minor and absorbable costs.
• As the analysis notes, there are no state costs.
• Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee heard a regular order agenda with 101 bills and first took up AB 2215, which would extend the time for the Department of Water Resources to fully develop its State Water Project water rights. The author and supporters argued it would improve water reliability and affordability for millions of Californians and could save ratepayers money, while opponents said it would bypass the Water Board’s administrative process, set a precedent for other water rights holders, and potentially facilitate costly projects like the Delta Conveyance Project. The bill was moved on a do pass vote, with Mr. Hoover voting no and Ms. Krell not voting. The committee then approved two consent calendars and heard several bills with little or no opposition. These included AB 2038 on extending insurance nonrenewal/cancellation protections for wildfire victims; AB 2322 on clarifying which commercial, industrial, or institutional sites are subject to municipal stormwater permits; AB 1794 on direct home shipment of enteral nutrition; AB 1696 on clarifying that nurse midwives do not need physician supervision within their scope of practice; AB 1860 on allowing county offices of education to use design-build methods; AB 1876 on codifying nondiscrimination protections in health care; AB 2281 on election cybersecurity resources; AB 2448 on protecting sensitive medical records and reproductive health data; AB 1994 on providing victims with information about federal immigration relief options; and AB 1829 on expanding how CalWORKs community college funds may be used to support student parents. Most were supported by sponsoring organizations and related stakeholders, with limited opposition noted on AB 1696 and AB 2281. The committee also placed a large suspense calendar on approval, listing dozens of additional bills, and then opened public comment on bills not heard that day. No members of the public came forward, and the hearing was adjourned. Several bills were reported out on roll call votes, with some members not voting or voting no on particular measures, but the transcript does not provide full vote tallies for each bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• It comes from our gun safety legislation last session.
• any legislative recommendations, to the clerks of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
• , and that should be part of legislation, and maybe that's more important than suicides.
• from the other two states. ...differentiate our legislation from the other two states.
• I was going to say the analysis and feasibility, viability and feasibility that we require... ...analysis

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Emerging Firearm Technology met to review its work on intentional microstamping and personalized firearms and to discuss draft recommendations for a final report. The co-chairs summarized testimony received from manufacturers, advocates, law enforcement, and officials from New Jersey, New York, and California. For microstamping, the discussion focused on how the technology could help trace spent casings, its limits in forensic use, and concerns about wear, tampering, implementation costs, and whether it would burden lawful gun owners. For personalized firearms, members reviewed testimony about biometric smart guns, their current commercial availability, higher cost, and potential benefits for preventing accidental shootings and unauthorized use, especially involving children and suicide prevention. Commissioners expressed a range of views. Several supported microstamping as a crime-solving tool and endorsed a recommendation that the legislature direct a feasibility and viability study, set standards and training, fund implementation, and create penalties for tampering. Others opposed microstamping, arguing it has not worked in other states, may not reduce crime, and could impose costs on manufacturers and owners. On personalized firearms, most commissioners supported encouraging the technology, but there was disagreement over whether to create a temporary sales tax exemption; some favored an incentive to promote adoption, while others opposed any tax subsidy for firearms or questioned whether the data justified it. The co-chairs said they would draft a report reflecting the majority consensus and circulate it for review before a final vote at a later meeting, likely in July. The commission also discussed which executive branch agency should conduct the microstamping feasibility study, with the Attorney General’s office and EOPSS mentioned as possibilities. The meeting ended with agreement to reconvene for final votes on the report and recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have my legislative aide, Megan Dohy.
• I have my legislative aid, M Megan now.
• We have my legislative aid, Aiden Dohy.
• > again, previous legislation targeted again, previous legislation targeted Kiki<01:04:15.839> specifically
• and carry out any official legislative and carry out any official legislative business<01:15:50.719

Keywords: 910, house, all