Transcript Highlights:

• So when we do our salary analysis, ...for compensation purposes.
• I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis.
• An analysis would confirm that for us.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• I'll move the analysis. A second. further analysis. So Representative Vetter?

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• So when we do our salary analysis, ...we do our salary analysis of public sector comparisons against
• I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis.
• An analysis would confirm that for us.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• Adding new members to a retirement plan typically does require further analysis.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and the ACT actual analysis Baseline and the ACT actual analysis again<00:14:56.560> suggested
• updated actuar analysis and each actu<00:36:26.440> analysis<00:36:26.839> had<00:36:27.000
• > multiple<00:36:27.280> scenar actu analysis had multiple scenar actu analysis had multiple
• and there was update acttion analysis and there was update acttion analysis created<00:36:33.119
• <00:36:52.560> and that October 2023 actually analysis and that October 2023 actually analysis

Bills: HF3

Keywords: legislative auditor, reporting, accountability, state finance, executive agency oversight, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis.
• An analysis would confirm that for us.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• Adding new members to a retirement plan typically does require further analysis.
• We take jurisdiction and conduct the analysis. We have a motion to take jurisdiction.

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• She did analysis. She talked to lawyers.
• They give you a racial polarized voting analysis.
• That a lot of parties have done analysis, an analysis of this map, and I have yet...
• Republican performance analysis? I haven't asked that question.
• ...that to make a Jingles analysis and do other determinations.

Bills: SB 2, SB 5, SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, HB4, HB1, HB3, HB20, HB22, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4, HB4, SB2, SB5

Keywords: disaster relief, flood preparedness, emergency funding, local government support, meteorological forecasting, school assessment, public education, accountability, transparency, education standards, STAAR, Texas Education Agency, TEA, public school accountability, school ratings, A-F ratings, assessment reform, student testing, benchmark tests, interim assessments

Transcript Highlights:

• Trying to figure out what analysis was made.
• That they did a very thorough analysis in their report to me and I have confidence in that analysis.
• I'm confident that they did all analysis as necessary.
• Just like you, I am not qualified to make a Jingles analysis.
• I have not personally performed such an analysis. Mr.

Bills: SB 2, SB 5, SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, HB4, HB1, HB3, HB20, HB22, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4, HB4, SB2, SB5

Keywords: disaster relief, flood preparedness, emergency funding, local government support, meteorological forecasting, school assessment, public education, accountability, transparency, education standards, STAAR, Texas Education Agency, TEA, public school accountability, school ratings, A-F ratings, assessment reform, student testing, benchmark tests, interim assessments

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh you for legal analysis and study.
• The actuarial analysis really is to look at the Hawaiʻi data.
• You know, how is this analysis going to take place?
• How long is it going to take for DIR to complete the analysis?
• <00:24:40.000> an<00:24:40.159> actual closed case analysis an actual closed case analysis

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The actuarial analysis described that as preferable.
• The actuarial analysis described that as preferable.
• way we could measure across the same methodology. analysis required in the enacting analysis required
• The actual analysis comes out and the agency says, well, we were reacting to the actual analysis.
• , and so I'm not suggesting additional analysis.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the fiscal note process, prompted by concerns raised in a prior hearing about the fiscal note for the Paid Family and Medical Leave law. Chair Marty, Senator Pratt, and Senator Wiklund said the goal was not to revisit the bill itself but to strengthen understanding of fiscal note standards, the role of the Legislative Budget Office (LBO), and communication with agencies. They emphasized bipartisan concern that fiscal notes must be respected and that the process should be clearer going forward. Christian Larison of the LBO explained that the 2024 fiscal note issues stemmed from three main problems: choosing the proper baseline for a program that had not yet started, interpreting the seven-day qualifying event/waiting period, and determining whether DEED could adjust the first-year premium rate. He said the LBO, DEED, MMB, and House fiscal staff ultimately used the October 2023 actuarial analysis as the baseline because it was the most recent and likely most accurate estimate, but that choice meant the fiscal note did not show the difference from the 2023 enacted budget. He also described how DEED later interpreted the seven-day provision as a waiting period and how the premium-rate assumptions affected the fiscal impact. Larison outlined possible responses, including more assertive early communication from the LBO, providing more detailed analysis in unusual cases, and possibly creating a working group through the LBO Oversight Commission to consider new standards for substantial assumption changes, complex new programs, and third-party actuarial work. He also noted the LBO has authority to issue unapproved fiscal notes if standards are not met, though it has not used that authority. In questions, Senator Murphy asked about protecting the credibility of fiscal notes, and Larison said maintaining independence, objectivity, and consistent standards is central to the LBO’s role. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then the analysis is done on the data that's been entered.
• The cost analysis study, though, will actually look at the cost, the true costs that it would take to
• 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:

• 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:

• also the defrayal analysis and calculation if needed. ...and then, as I said, also the defrayal analysis
• about to be able to do an analysis.
• um about to be able to do an analysis um about to be able to do an analysis and<00:12:58.519>
• A separate actuarial analysis is required.
• research and applied policy analysis research and applied policy analysis focusing<00:30:25.880>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• um, type of analysis. um, type of analysis.
• <00:57:38.320> that a fiscal note and do an analysis that a fiscal note and do an analysis
• <00:58:40.680> and budget office performing analysis and budget office performing analysis
• At the same time, there's also a possibility that an analysis of this kind of variance analysis would
• type of analysis would work. type of analysis would work.

Bills: HF1234, HF3528, HF3672, HF3679, HF3680, HF1944

Keywords: payment transparency, public contracts, contractor rights, government accountability, construction payments, barbering, licensing, examinations, barber schools, public safety, certifications, Barber Examiners Board, data transparency, Legislative Budget Office, state agencies, fiscal notes, public data, standard time, federal law, time zone

Transcript Highlights:

• The financial analysis of the bill finds minimal cost.
• One thing that was in the analysis from the State Water Board: they made two comments.
• 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.

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:

• Senate Bill 818 by Betancourt relating to the establishment of the Health Impact Cost and Coverage Analysis

Bills: SJR1, SJR2, SJR5, SJR33, SJR34, SJR35, SJR37, SJR38, SJR39, SCR12, SB4, SB40, SB701, SB702, SB703, SB704, SB705, SB706, SB707, SB708, SB709, SB710, SB711, SB712, SB713, SB714, SB715, SB716, SB717, SB718, SB719, SB720, SB721, SB722, SB723, SB724, SB725, SB726, SB727, SB728, SB729, SB730, SB731, SB732, SB733, SB734, SB735, SB736, SB737, SB738, SB739, SB740, SB741, SB742, SB743, SB744, SB745, SB746, SB747, SB748, SB749, SB750, SB751, SB752, SB753, SB754, SB755, SB756, SB757, SB758, SB759, SB760, SB761, SB762, SB763, SB764, SB765, SB766, SB767, SB768, SB769, SB770, SB771, SB772, SB773, SB774, SB775, SB776, SB777, SB778, SB779, SB780, SB781, SB782, SB783, SB784, SB785, SB786, SB787, SB788, SB789, SB790, SB791, SB792, SB793, SB794, SB795, SB796, SB797, SB798, SB799, SB800, SB801, SB802, SB803, SB804, SB805, SB806, SB807, SB808, SB809, SB810, SB811, SB812, SB813, SB814, SB815, SB816, SB817, SB818, SB819, SB820, SB821, SB822, SB823, SB824, SB825, SJR1, SJR2, SJR5, SJR33, SJR34, SJR35, SJR37, SJR38, SJR39, SCR12, SB4, SB40, SB701, SB702, SB703, SB704, SB705, SB706, SB707, SB708, SB709, SB710, SB711, SB712, SB713, SB714, SB715, SB716, SB717, SB718, SB719, SB720, SB721, SB722, SB723, SB724, SB725, SB726, SB727, SB728, SB729, SB730, SB731, SB732, SB733, SB734, SB735, SB736, SB737, SB738, SB739, SB740, SB741, SB742, SB743, SB744, SB745, SB746, SB747, SB748, SB749, SB750, SB751, SB752, SB753, SB754, SB755, SB756, SB757, SB758, SB759, SB760, SB761, SB762, SB763, SB764, SB765, SB766, SB767, SB768, SB769, SB770, SB771, SB772, SB773, SB774, SB775, SB776, SB777, SB778, SB779, SB780, SB781, SB782, SB783, SB784, SB785, SB786, SB787, SB788, SB789, SB790, SB791, SB792, SB793, SB794, SB795, SB796, SB797, SB798, SB799, SB800, SB801, SB802, SB803, SB804, SB805, SB806, SB807, SB808, SB809, SB810, SB811, SB812, SB813, SB814, SB815, SB816, SB817, SB818, SB819, SB820, SB821, SB822, SB823, SB824, SB825

Keywords: bail denial, illegal aliens, felony offenses, constitutional amendment, law enforcement, SJR 2, Senate Joint Resolution 2, homestead exemption, property tax relief, school property tax, ad valorem tax, residence homestead, school district taxes, Texas Constitution Article VIII, public school finance, homeowner exemption, elderly exemption, senior tax relief, disabled exemption, tax year 2025

Transcript Highlights:

• So at the start of the pilot program, there's a cost-benefit analysis done.
• Frickie, does L.C., what has to trigger L.C. to do cost-benefit analysis?
• I look at your fiscal note, not the cost-benefit analysis.
• I'm not sure I've ever reviewed the cost-benefit analysis.
• I look at your fiscal note, not the cost-benefit analysis.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The conference committee on HB 1248 met to review differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, which concerns the PERS pilot program and insurance mandate process. Rebecca Frickie, executive director of PERS, explained that the Senate version removed the House provisions repealing the insurance mandate process, kept the two-year PERS pilot intact, and preserved the requirement for a report at the end of the pilot while removing language that would have required PERS to submit a bill to expand coverage to the commercial market. Members discussed the bill’s cost-benefit analysis requirements. Frickie said the current law triggers a cost-benefit analysis at the start of the pilot and again when a bill is introduced to roll coverage out commercially, but the Senate draft would change that to only one analysis at the end of the pilot if a rollout bill is introduced. Legislative Council indicated that if the committee wants that simplified approach, additional conforming changes are needed elsewhere in the code. Senators also asked about the purpose of the initial analysis and whether it is used beyond being attached to the bill packet; Frickie said PERS relies primarily on its own actuary and was not aware of broader use. The committee discussed whether the revised process would still require legislative sponsorship for any future rollout, and Frickie confirmed that a legislator or other sponsor would need to introduce such a bill. Examples mentioned included insulin caps and breast exams as possible future pilot items. The committee agreed to request Legislative Council draft the needed language changes and planned to reconvene after receiving the updated draft; no final vote was taken and the meeting was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the objective of a level three analysis, here's some information on that.
• 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.

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:

• No regulatory analysis was required.
• This was not required for a regulatory analysis.
• This was not required for a regulatory analysis.
• This was not required for a regulatory analysis.
• This was not required for a regulatory analysis.

Summary: The committee approved the March 12, 2026 minutes and granted the Board of Medicine an extension of time to implement rule changes tied to House Bill 1620/1622, which concern North Dakota’s entry into the physician assistant licensure compact. The Board said it is waiting on compact rules, especially fee structures, before finalizing its own rules. The committee then took up extensive Office of Management and Budget personnel rule revisions, covering salary administration, recruitment, leave policies, funeral leave, service awards, appeals, and shared leave. OMB said the changes modernize HR practices and implement recent legislation, including new hire leave and enhanced annual leave for hard-to-fill positions; the committee raised concerns about the subjectivity and fairness of the hard-to-fill leave provisions, but no action was taken against the rules. The North Dakota Lottery presented emergency and regular rule changes, including updates tied to the Millionaire for Life game and miscellaneous clarifications. The Board of Examiners for Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology described rule updates that add speech-language pathology assistants to the rules, ease continuing education requirements for out-of-state applicants, expand temporary licensure, and clarify supervision standards. The State Electrical Board reviewed numerous code updates, including changes to electrical and fire alarm standards, receptacle labeling, countertop receptacles, and a major new conveyance/elevator inspection program added by the Legislature; the board said it is preparing to begin inspections by August 1. The Industrial Commission’s Geological Survey Division presented new rules implementing House Bill 1459 on critical minerals in coal-bearing formations, including permit, reporting, confidentiality, and royalty-related provisions. The committee asked about confidentiality of exploration data and drilling depth. The Public Employees Retirement System outlined rule changes implementing several bills affecting defined benefit, public safety, defined contribution, insurance, deferred compensation, and retiree health credit programs, and noted possible future proposals to add state EMS or create a LOSAP-style plan. The Department of Health and Human Services presented substance use disorder voucher rules implementing House Bill 1012, including allowing individuals to apply directly and setting reimbursement procedures; the rules were expected to have a $250,000 general fund impact already included in the budget. The longest discussion involved the Gaming Commission rules. Members questioned whether the commission had authority to raise poker tournament buy-ins from $300 to $1,500, viewing it as an expansion of gaming rather than a mere clarification. After debate, the committee voted to void that specific rule section for lack of statutory authority. The rest of the gaming rules covered higher raffle limits from House Bill 1192, the change from “bar” to “alcoholic beverage establishment,” veterans’ organization proceeds, credit ticket voucher kiosks, online raffles, and advertising restrictions; the presenter said several public comments led to revisions or withdrawals of proposed language. The meeting ended with discussion of upcoming Ethics Commission travel-reporting rules and scheduling the next committee meeting in September.

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.
• I will be accepting the committee's amendments, describing the analysis.
• 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:

• No regulatory analysis was required.
• This was not required for a regulatory analysis.
• Regulatory analysis and fiscal note were prepared.
• Regulatory analysis and fiscal note were prepared.
• No written requests for regulatory analysis have been filed.

Summary: The Administrative Rules Committee met on June 11 and first approved the March 12, 2026 minutes by voice vote. It then granted the Board of Medicine an extension of time to implement rules tied to recent legislation, including North Dakota’s participation in the physician assistant licensure compact and a new physician nutrition continuing education requirement. The Board said it was waiting on compact rules and fee information before finalizing its own changes. The committee heard a lengthy presentation from the Office of Management and Budget on broad personnel rule revisions, including salary administration, recruitment, leave, sick leave, funeral leave, service awards, appeals, and shared leave. OMB said the changes modernize HR language and implement recent legislation such as enhanced annual leave for hard-to-fill positions and new hire leave. Members questioned the hard-to-fill leave provisions, but OMB and counsel said those standards come from statute, not the rules. The committee also heard and accepted rule packages from the Lottery, the Board of Examiners for Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, the State Electrical Board, the Industrial Commission, PERS, and Health and Human Services, with each agency describing mostly technical, clarifying, or statutory-conforming changes and noting the public notice and comment process. The most significant action came during the Gaming Commission rules presentation. After questioning whether the commission had authority to raise the poker tournament buy-in limit from $300 to $1,500, members moved to void Section 99-01.3-09-01 on the ground that the agency lacked statutory authority for that change. The motion passed on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed several gaming-related issues, including online raffles, kiosk use, advertising restrictions, and the broader policy question of whether charities should be allowed to own bars, but took no further formal action on those topics.

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to stop for a moment to thank the committee for the excellent analysis.
• identified in the analysis.
• on its head and define things as constraints without any analysis at all.
• This bill will strengthen the connection between the analysis and programs by requiring the analysis
• This bill will strengthen the connection between the analysis and programs by requiring the analysis

Summary: The Assembly Local Government Committee heard a long agenda of housing, water, and local finance bills, with the chair repeatedly reminding attendees about hearing rules and noting that several measures were being heard without a quorum at first. Early items included AB 407, which would broaden eligibility for state-run loan and financing programs to help small businesses fund environmental, seismic, and ADA upgrades, and AB 93, which would require data centers to estimate and report water use and follow state best practices. AB 93 drew support from water advocates and local government groups, while the Data Center Coalition opposed it, arguing the bill could be overly restrictive, difficult to retrofit, and raise trade secret or security concerns. The committee also heard AB 650 on housing element review, AB 1044 on creating a new Tulare County groundwater sustainability agency, and AB 523 on allowing proxy voting for single-representative member agencies on the Metropolitan Water District board; all drew broad support from local agencies and related stakeholders and no recorded opposition in the room. Several housing bills were presented as part of a broader fast-track housing package. AB 507 would streamline adaptive reuse of office buildings into housing, especially in downtowns with high vacancy; supporters said it would revive urban cores and help meet housing and climate goals, while the League of California Cities and a few cities opposed it unless amended, citing concerns about one-size-fits-all by-right approval and fee limitations. AB 1294 would create a universal housing application and limit early application requirements; it drew strong support from housing and business groups, with the American Planning Association and League of California Cities seeking more flexibility and input. AB 610 would require local governments to disclose housing constraints in their housing elements and limit new constraints after certification for three years unless disclosed; supporters said it would improve transparency and certainty, while opponents warned it could chill legitimate local policy choices and inclusionary housing requirements. Both AB 610 and AB 698, which would require analysis of the housing and property tax impacts of proposed transfer taxes, were moved out of committee on 7-0 votes after discussion and amendments. The committee also heard AB 1112, which would repeal an outdated Riverside County property tax provision affecting Rancho Mirage; the city argued it was the only qualifying no-low property tax city not receiving the standard minimum and sought equal treatment. After quorum was established, the bill was passed 6-0 with amendments and sent to Appropriations. AB 1021, heard later, would make it easier for school districts and other local education agencies to build employee housing, with the author citing teacher recruitment and retention problems and support from education stakeholders. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized the need to balance housing production, local fiscal tools, and infrastructure needs, and several authors accepted committee amendments and committed to continued negotiations with opponents.