Transcript Highlights:

• On the financial side, the project has recently secured an ongoing $1 billion annual appropriation from
• I want to take a moment to thank the governor and the legislature for securing last year's appropriation
• I'll say this, Senator, that today in the program, the way we have allocated funds and appropriated..
• Happy to take questions at the appropriate time. Thank you. We'll get back to you on the questions.
• And someday we’re going to have to come to that realization and take the appropriate action.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan and next steps for the project. Chair Cortese opened by noting major changes since the 2024 plan, including new leadership, a bottoms-up review, scope changes in the Central Valley, loss of federal funds, and renewed interest in private investment and value capture. The Authority’s CEO, Ian Chaudhary, presented the project as moving into a construction and track-laying phase, citing progress on Central Valley structures, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations, and a new procurement for track and systems. He said the plan reflects a more disciplined, optimized approach, with the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment targeted for revenue service around 2033 and the broader Phase 1 corridor envisioned as commercially viable through ancillary revenues, public-private partnerships, and future private financing. Committee members questioned the Authority about station relocations, single-tracking, tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, transparency, and the feasibility of private financing. Chaudhary said the Merced and Bakersfield station locations were still under discussion with local governments and that no contracts had been finalized. He defended the reduced scope and single-track approach as a just-in-time strategy to avoid overbuilding, while maintaining high-speed standards. He also said the Authority was exploring land value capture, broadband, energy, and other corridor-based revenue sources, but acknowledged that some tools would require legislative action and that private financing options were still being evaluated. Several senators expressed support for the project but raised concerns about permitting delays, local opposition, constitutional and statutory limits, and the need for stronger accountability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General then gave critical assessments of the draft plan. LAO staff said the plan assumes major statutory changes, understates risk, lacks transparency about scope changes, and may not fully fund even the smaller Merced-to-Bakersfield segment once borrowing costs and other uncertainties are considered. Inspector General Ben Belknap said the draft plan does not comply with newer statutory requirements in SB 198 and AB 377, citing three main deficiencies: unauthorized scope changes to the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, an inadequate funding plan that omits financing costs, and missing procurement milestone dates. He said the Authority’s presentation obscures the true cost and schedule impacts of the project changes, and that incomplete reporting limits legislative oversight. The Authority responded that it would address the OIG’s findings in the final business plan, and committee members indicated they expected a written response on compliance issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, it really—the money is going to come out of this year's, the 2025 surplus, I guess, or there's, yes
• , surplus.
• Um, so House File 601 is an appropriation for fiscal year 25, addressing the issue right now that the
• <00:12:34.880> 601<00:12:35.360> is<00:12:35.519> an<00:12:35.680> appropriation
• <00:12:36.240> for house file 601 is an appropriation for house file 601 is an appropriation

Bills: HF601

Keywords: agriculture, depredation compensation, livestock, crop damage, elk, wolves, wildlife management, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think if this committee thought it appropriate to increase that $4,000 to something else, that would
• If this committee thought it appropriate to increase that $4,000 to something else, that would certainly
• You know, doctors back home are just beyond themselves that we have as much surplus revenue as we have
• and yet we're still not dealing with this issue, quite frankly. ...themselves that we have as much surplus

Bills: SB12, SB13

Keywords: tax credit, physician, healthcare, income tax, rural health, tax deduction, gross receipts, coinsurance, managed care, 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm used to having appropriate priorities.
• And the A3 amendment, members, eliminates all the appropriations in this bill.
• And the 3 amendment members eliminates all the appropriations in this bill.
• Speaker, that the Legislature has its largest appropriation in state history.
• Long story short, the appropriation was going to be cut.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House took up Senate File 3432, a public safety bill requiring identifying equipment and insignia to be removed from emergency vehicles sold to the public. The chamber first adopted a House language amendment, then debated a broader security package that would fund judicial and courthouse security, Capitol security measures, short-term protection for legislators facing credible threats, State Patrol deficiency funding, and additional BCA analysts and investigators to assess threats statewide. Supporters framed the bill as necessary to protect public safety, democracy, and First Amendment activity at the Capitol and courthouses; they also said the package was pared down from larger requests and based on security reviews. The House adopted an A-1 amendment clarifying that BCA staff could investigate threats statewide, and later rejected a Schultz A-3 amendment that would have eliminated all appropriations in the bill. The A-3 was defeated on a 37-94 vote after the House upheld the Speaker’s ruling that a proposed school-safety secondary amendment was not germane, with that appeal decided 69-62. A major theme of debate was whether the Legislature should prioritize security for members and the Capitol before passing school safety funding. Several members argued they could not support spending tens of millions on Capitol and legislative security without first funding school safety for all students, including public, charter, private, and tribal schools. Others defended the bill as necessary because of recent threats and violence, including the June 14 tragedy, and said the Capitol security changes were based on professional recommendations. Some members also criticized the new security setup as overly restrictive or “security theater,” while supporters said the measures were needed to keep the public, staff, and lawmakers safe. After the A-3 was defeated, the bill was read for third time and members continued floor debate. The discussion remained split between those emphasizing immediate Capitol and legislative security needs and those insisting school safety should come first. Representative Agbaje then moved to table the bill, and the clerk began a roll call on that motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• one and two in fact uh an appropriate one and two in fact uh an appropriate way<01:18:21.600>
• makes the appropriation makes the appropriation $7.5 $7.5 $7.5 million<02:36:27.680> from
• appropriation of 7.5 million. appropriation of 7.5 million.
• appropriation would be reduced. appropriation would be reduced.
• any surplus or amnesty funds available. any surplus or amnesty funds available.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Division 3 work session opened on February 13, 2026, with the chair outlining the committee’s advisory role and the possible motions available under House Rule 45. The committee then took up House Bill 1569, concerning the Philbrook Center/state hospital campus property, and heard extensive testimony from Commissioner Charlie Arlinghouse. He explained that the property is currently one parcel and state law prevents subdivision unless a separate Senate bill, identified as SB 572, is enacted to fix the legal issue. He said HB 2 directed the sale of the property but did not address subdivision or marketing details, and he characterized the $5 million revenue estimate as speculative. He also said the state would first offer the property to the city or county, which he viewed as the most practical buyer and potential partner for any subdivision work. Members asked whether the building should be retained for transitional housing or sold, what would happen after July 1, 2026, and whether other vacant state buildings could absorb the current occupants. Arlinghouse said there are no firm plans for the building if it is not sold, and that HHS would remain until a sale occurs. He described the building as not especially historic or attractive and noted plumbing issues, while also acknowledging HHS’s view that it could serve as transitional housing. He said there is no reserve stock of office space, that the state already rents substantial office space in Concord, and that some nearby state buildings are either under renovation or only partially usable. He also said the Executive Council would have to approve any sale and that moving costs are usually not budgeted in advance, leaving the using agency to absorb them. Several members raised concerns about relying on asset sales to balance the budget, citing past examples where projected real estate revenue did not materialize on schedule. Arlinghouse agreed that one-time revenue should generally be used for one-time expenses, but said the state sometimes has legitimate reasons to sell assets and that such decisions depend on the state’s needs. He estimated the state rents roughly 100,000 square feet of office space in Concord at about $25 per square foot, and said he would provide a more exact figure later. In response to a question about whether the state should include a right of first refusal if the property is later resold, he said that idea had not been considered but could make sense, especially if the buyer is the city or county. No votes were taken during this portion of the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• After that was finished, the real work began as campaign workers went to surplus voters.
• delegate, you could get an extra delegate, making the case for their candidate and watching those surplus
• afternoon, Chair Hahn and honorable members. finished, the real work began as campaign voters went to surplus
• candidate, you could get an extra delegate, making the case for their candidate and watching those surplus

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Election Laws held a hearing on ranked choice voting, focusing primarily on Boston’s home rule petition (H. 4262) and Bedford’s petition (H. 4916). Committee chairs Dan Hunt and Senator Keenan opened the hearing, explained the three-minute testimony limit, and noted that written testimony would also be accepted. The hearing featured testimony from a wide range of supporters, including advocacy organizations, community leaders, Boston City Council members, and Bedford residents. Witnesses generally argued that ranked choice voting would produce majority-supported winners, reduce vote-splitting and negative campaigning, encourage coalition-building, and give voters more freedom to rank candidates without fear of wasting their vote. Several speakers emphasized local control and said Boston and Bedford should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to adopt the system. Others highlighted potential benefits for women, historically marginalized communities, and voter participation more broadly. Boston councilors and supporters also described the city’s local approval process and said the proposal would still require voter ratification if enacted by the legislature. No opposition testimony was presented in the excerpt. The committee took no substantive vote on the bills during the hearing; after testimony concluded, the chairs thanked participants and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We had an $18 billion surplus.
• two years ago uh we had an<00:02:47.879> $18<00:02:48.400> billion<00:02:49.000> Surplus
• c><00:02:49.440> we've<00:02:49.599> heard<00:02:49.840> many an $18 billion Surplus
• we've heard many an $18 billion Surplus we've heard many times<00:02:50.599> on<00:02:50.840>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > I think what you're seeing right now is Democrats' frustration after 2 years and $18 billion of surplus
• billion dollar of surplus being spent. billion dollar of surplus being spent.
• We saw $18 billion of surplus being spent that year.
• We saw $18 billion<00:41:07.280> of<00:41:07.440> surplus<00:41:07.920> being<00
• uh that billion of surplus being spent uh that year.<00:41:09.680> And<00:41:09.839> then<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It also provides for an additional appropriation of $25 million to be directed toward affordable housing
• This bill provides a much-needed immediate one-time appropriation, and importantly it also provides ongoing
• and importantly it onetime appropriation and importantly it also<00:06:49.639> provides<00:06
• Builders could better fit appropriately Builders could better fit appropriately sized<01:00:56.079
• I'll pass this in if that's appropriate with my scrubbles on it.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Welfare Trust Fund and Animal Welfare Program Fund, making an appropriation, providing for a transfer
• Those surplus animals lead to increased costs for sheltering and increased costs when animal control
• House Bill 113 does this by investing a small fraction of the current revenue surplus.
• We've settled at the amount of the You see in the appropriation that is in the bill at $10 million.
• I mean, I go back to the appropriation, like 1.1 million, right?

Transcript Highlights:

• Motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
• I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.
• So I will move the bill at the appropriate time. Thank you.
• In appropriations, these amendments were put in. Smaller venues and the larger arenas.
• In appropriations, was the sporting thing also added, or did that come after?

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That process still would be worked out once we identify the surplus land that's there.
• surplus land for this process.
• The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Fong.
• The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee.
• The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Merseucci.

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee met with a quorum and first approved a consent calendar containing AB 341, AB 1098, and AB 1316, sending those measures to the Human Services, Judiciary, and Appropriations Committees respectively. The committee then heard AB 977, which would require CSU to audit surplus land and work with California tribes to identify three regional burial sites for Native American remains that cannot yet be repatriated. Supporters, including tribal leaders and archaeology groups, said the bill is needed to honor ancestors and address the large number of remains still held by CSU; CSU said it is committed to repatriation but had no formal position. The bill passed to Appropriations on a 5-0 vote. Members also heard AB 1093, creating a California-Mexico higher education exchange program, and AB 1035, expanding the California College Promise to cover tuition for students pursuing community college bachelor’s degrees. AB 1093 drew support for strengthening cross-border educational and economic ties, but some members raised concerns about border-region sewage problems and the bill’s budget implications; it was held for later consideration. AB 1035 received strong support from community college leaders and faculty who said it would help low-income and first-generation students complete workforce-focused bachelor’s degrees, but several members questioned whether it would stretch Prop. 98 funding and whether the state should prioritize broader affordability concerns. AB 1035 passed to Appropriations on a 3-2 vote. The committee next approved AB 922, which would let the University of California keep access to federal criminal-history information for hiring background checks, avoiding delays and added costs if statutory authority is required. UC said the bill is needed to maintain safety and hiring operations, and it passed to Public Safety on a 5-0 vote. AB 1346, protecting military dependents from losing in-state residency status because of family travel, also passed unanimously to Military and Veterans Affairs. AB 1212, allowing UC to use low-income housing tax credits to build affordable housing for faculty and staff on UC land, drew support from UC and labor groups but opposition from members concerned about preferential access to public resources; it was held for later action. Finally, the committee approved AB 500 and AB 684, both aimed at increasing transparency around UC admissions policy changes and UC BOARS decision-making, sending AB 500 to Education and AB 684 to Governmental Organization, each on 5-0 votes. The hearing then moved on to AB 1122 on dual enrollment, with the author and witnesses presenting the bill as a way to expand college access for high school students.

Transcript Highlights:

• We know that we've got a $6 billion deficit that is looming even after spending the $18 billion surplus
• We know that we've got a $6 billion deficit that is looming even after spending the $18 billion surplus
• We know that we've got a $6 billion deficit that is looming even after spending the $18 billion surplus
• We know that we've got a $6 billion deficit that is looming even after spending the $18 billion surplus

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:08:17.280> have cultural heritage appropriation have cultural heritage appropriation have
• uh just to note any to appropriate uh just to note any Appropriations<00:20:56.400> made<00:20
• deal with so every uh appropriation deal with so every uh appropriation there's<00:33:26.039>
• over in addition so the Appropriations over in addition so the Appropriations that<00:34:16.960>
• So they have an appropriation in the bottom of our appropriation bill every year.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Legacy Finance Committee held its first meeting of the session, with members and staff introducing themselves and the chair emphasizing the committee’s role in overseeing Minnesota’s Legacy Amendment funds. The committee then received an overview of the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund from Mary Davis. She explained that the fund receives 19.75% of the 1% sales tax, is constitutionally limited to arts education, arts access, and preserving Minnesota history and cultural heritage, and is not a guaranteed base for prior recipients. She reviewed major recipients and statutory requirements, including the Minnesota State Arts Board’s 47% share, funding for the Historical Society, libraries, humanities and cultural organizations, public media, and the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council. She also noted the 5% reserve requirement, reporting obligations, and a 2023 legislative directive to improve access through free or reduced admission and outreach to households regardless of income. The committee next heard from Janelle Taylor on the natural resources funds, focusing on the Clean Water Fund and Parks and Trails Fund. She said the Clean Water Fund receives 33% of Legacy revenues and must be used to protect, enhance, and restore water quality and protect groundwater, with at least 5% dedicated to drinking water sources. She described the Clean Water Council’s recommendation process and said most of the money goes to Board of Water and Soil Resources projects, with additional funding for PCA and DNR monitoring. In response to a question about Hastings and PFAS contamination, she said the legislature could appropriate clean water money if the project fits the constitutional criteria and protects drinking water sources. For the Parks and Trails Fund, she explained it receives 14.25% of Legacy revenues and is allocated under the long-standing 40-40-20 split: 40% to state parks and trails, 40% to metropolitan regional parks and trails, and 20% to Greater Minnesota regional parks and trails. House Fiscal Analysis staff then reviewed the reserve requirement and available balances, noting that each Legacy fund must keep a 5% reserve to protect against forecast changes. For the upcoming biennium, they cited approximately $327.229 million available for the Outdoor Heritage Fund, $184.73 million for the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund, and $133.13 million for the Parks and Trails Fund, with the Clean Water Fund total discussed earlier at about $311 million. Members briefly discussed the importance of the reserve and the zero-base nature of the funds. The committee then moved on to an overview of the Outdoor Heritage Fund and Outdoor Heritage Council from Mark Johnson and Joe Pelco, who explained that the fund was approved by voters in 2008, lasts 25 years, receives about one-third of the 3/8 of 1% sales tax, and is used to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife. They described the council’s statutory role, the small grants program for projects from $5,000 to $500,000, and the annual recommendation process, but no votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, the money is subject to appropriation by the legislature.
• I think that's new language for an appropriation.
• With the COG appropriation that was appropriated last year, this is basically extending the time duration
• You all appropriated, Mr. Chair, $2 million last year.
• I think part of the issue with this appropriation, Mr.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This pertains to an increase in appropriated receipts.
• We didn't have an appropriation for most of these cases.
• This is all about an appropriation.
• As you know, you can only do appropriations when it's time to appropriate.
• We just have to pay it through an appropriation, and there's no way to appropriate, right?

Bills: SB 1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And in the 2026 regular legislative session, House Bill 312 of 2026 provided some appropriations to LASERS
• It provided two appropriations to LASERS: one is the fiscal year 2024-2025 surplus appropriation of $144
• With the incorporation of these appropriations that reduce the contribution rate by 2.46%, you can see
• So what I did is I just put a line in here to mention the appropriation from 26 and to show that it's
• Subject to the appropriation. Subject to the appropriation.

Summary: The Public Retirement Systems Actuarial Committee met on June 22 and approved the minutes from the February 23, 2026 meeting. There was no public comment. The main discussion focused on Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System (LASERS) and how appropriations from House Bill 312 of 2026 affect the system’s actuarial valuation and employer contribution rate for fiscal year 2027. Staff explained that HB 312 provided about $145 million in appropriations to LASERS, with roughly $87.6 million applied to the original amortization base and about $57.9 million applied to the experience account amortization base. As a result, the projected aggregate employer contribution rate for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026 was revised from 32.51% to 30.05%, a reduction of 2.46%, and the required projected employer contribution was updated to about $738.7 million. The presentation also noted that the June 30, 2025 valuation itself did not change, only the projected 2026 rate, and that the original amortization base would be paid off by June 30, 2026. Committee members asked about the longer-term effect of the changes, including a projected 2036 payment reduction. Staff explained that later-year UAL payments would be lower, but that the exact savings would depend on future actuarial experience and investment performance. The committee then adopted the motion to revise the projected fiscal year 2027 LASERS aggregate contribution rate to 30.05%, subject to the appropriation, and later adjourned without opposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have leveraged our state surplus over several sessions to make targeted investments.
• It helps feed Texans with enhancements in the home-delivered meals program and the surplus agriculture
• It's what we had done last session when we had surplus as well.
• We're going to have a unit that is very specific for them, done in an appropriate manner and done well
• Initially, no state funding was appropriated for the initiative; however, that has now changed, making

Bills: SB27, SB1494, SB2121, SB2373, SB2431, SB1, SB8, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB30, SB37, SB260, SB268, SB331, SB379, SB441, SB447, SB457, SB568, SB650, SB763, SB1405, SB1506, SB1540, SB1566, SB1610, SB1637, SB1660, SB2018, SB2024, SB2217, SB2308, SB2337, SB2601, SB2753, SB2878, SB2900, SB2972, SB3059, HB4, HB40, HB46, HB119, HB145, HB300, HB493, HB705, HB1545, HB2011, HB2017, HB2067, HB2516, HB2885, HB2963, HB2974, HB3071, HB3372, HB3556, HB3595, HB3642, HB3909, HB5138, HB5246, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3045, SB3071, HB796, HB1523, HB5294, HB748, HB3395, HB180, HB3171, HB146, HB5596, HB5694, HB1135, HB3225, HB186, HB1449, HB3793, HB112, HB104, HB3336, HB3520, HB3320, HB5663, HB2399, HB111, HB3483, HB4580, HB3748, HB632, HB4730, HB5690, HB5689, HB3385, HB4359, HB5381, HB123, HB5606, HB1057, HB3664, HCR141, HCR40, HCR59, SR634, SR687, SR703, SR709, SR715, SB1494, SB2121, SB2373, SB2431, HB46, SB1, SB8, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB37, SB260, SB331, SB379, SB441, SB447, SB457, SB568, SB763, SB1405, SB1540, SB1566, SB2018, SB2308, SB2337, SB2878, SB3059, HB705, HB2017, HB2067, HB3071, HB3372, HB3556, HB3595, HB3909, HB5246

Keywords: elections, local governance, political subdivisions, general elections, Texas Election Code, data brokers, personal data, regulation, business entities, consumer protection, financial exploitation, artificial intelligence, phishing, legal liability, criminal offense, civil penalty, foreign language, study abroad, higher education, language credit

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, different appropriation.
• The sense that we don't allow the private carriers to charge what they need for the appropriate risk.
• California had the opposite, where they couldn't charge for the appropriate risk.
• them and make sure they're appropriate them and make sure they're appropriate but<01:25:01.639><
• need for the appropriate risk California had<01:25:11.400> the<01:25:11.840> opposite<

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Ways and Means and Commerce and Consumer Protection heard the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs present its biennium budget request for fiscal years 2025 to 2027. Director Nainoa Ando said the department’s requests were primarily special-fund ceiling increases to meet operational needs. Major items included an additional $12 million to complete the King Kamehameha V Post Office building roof project after hidden deterioration and water intrusion were discovered, plus funding related to fringe benefits and central services assessments. The department also outlined requests for a new medical compact implementation cost, an auditor position, an engineer position, and a captive insurance IT modernization project. A significant portion of the discussion focused on the Office of Consumer Protection’s landlord-tenant call line and public service access. Senators raised concerns that callers often reach voicemail, are told to leave a message, and sometimes are referred to look up the law themselves. DCCA said the Oʻahu line is staffed by one full-time employee backed by two to three investigators, with one investigator each on Maui and Hawaiʻi Island, and that calls are tracked in a case management system. The department said it plans to add one more Oʻahu staff position through a transfer from another division and that a new call-center/web system with time tracking is expected to go live in the summer. Members also discussed a possible bill related to Pearson VUE nursing certification testing, with one senator describing the burden on neighbor-island nursing graduates who must travel to Honolulu for a one-hour test. The senator said she intended to introduce legislation after receiving no response to repeated outreach. DCCA did not take action on that proposal during the hearing. For the PUC-related requests, the department explained a one-time $1 million request for outside consulting tied to Maui wildfire-related filings, including wildfire safety mitigation and hazard mitigation plans, and a separate $900,000 request through the Consumer Advocacy Division to hire consultants for review and analysis. The committee also discussed a captive insurance IT modernization request, which DCCA said would replace manual and spreadsheet-based processes with a cloud-based system to better handle filings, payments, and workflow; no vote or final action was taken on the budget items during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think the intention, and I agree, we should make sure that the legislation is appropriately crafted
• I'll ask Senate Council or fiscal staff to clarify the general fund appropriation that we make for the
• Well, I actually kind of knew the answer because I know we don't appropriate directly to rail operations
• We are fortunate to have surplus funds during the next few years as we build out transit systems, and
• We are fortunate to have surplus funds during the next few years as we build out transit systems, and

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Transportation Committee met on January 29, 2025, to hear the Metropolitan Council’s presentation on the Governor’s proposed agency budget requests. The Council outlined three main budget items: authorization to advance funds to MnDOT to help coordinate a highway project with arterial bus rapid transit construction; a proposal to make free regular-route transit rides permanent for eligible Metro Mobility riders, after a successful pilot that produced nearly 75,000 rides; and a reduction in general fund support for rail operations, which the Council said it could absorb in the near term. The Council also noted it was seeking $15 million in the bonding bill for bus rapid transit, including support for the H Line, and described other capital requests for an infill/infiltration program and regional parks. Council leadership said the advance-funds proposal would let two projects move together more efficiently, reduce disruption, and potentially lower costs by avoiding repeated reconstruction and maintenance. On the Metro Mobility fare pilot, they said the lower fare increased rider freedom and spontaneity while saving state money because fixed-route service is cheaper than individual Metro Mobility trips. On the general fund reduction, they said the agency is expanding service, opening the Gold Line, B Line, and E Line, and can manage the cut because of its diversified revenue sources, though it could affect future expansion. Senator Nelson raised concerns about the proposal to expand the Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund to include regional parks and trails, warning that the legislation should clearly avoid creating condemnation authority for park or trail projects, especially where they are adjacent to MnDOT projects. Council staff responded that the program would finance local acquisitions rather than give the Met Council condemnation power, and said they would take the concern under advisement and ensure the legislation is carefully drafted. Members also discussed federal funding uncertainty; Council officials said federal transit operating support is about $30 million and that a pause or cut could affect future capital projects and some existing awards, while the region’s diversified funding base would help cushion operations. No votes or formal actions were taken at the meeting.