Transcript Highlights:

• I didn't know the ACLU has a stance on caps, on value of life or damages.
• Could you let me know what the ACLU's position is on damages and caps?
• What the ACLU's position is on damages and caps and various types?
• So what should the cap be? This is about whether or not... The cap, what's the economic value?
• This is the first time I'm aware that the ACLU believes there should be caps on the damages.

Bills: S0164, S0656, S0892

Keywords: wrongful death, unborn child, civil liability, medical provider, parental rights, habitual felony offenders, violent crimes, enhanced penalties, criminal justice, recidivism

Summary: The committee heard a lengthy presentation from Miami-Dade State Attorney Catherine Fernandez-Rundle on human trafficking, describing Florida’s high victim counts, the role of online recruitment, common victim and trafficker profiles, and several case examples involving sexual exploitation, labor trafficking, and interstate trafficking. She highlighted Miami-Dade’s task force model, partnerships with law enforcement, schools, businesses, and shelters such as Camillus House’s Project Phoenix and the Thrive Clinic, and said the office relies heavily on technology, training, and victim-centered prosecution. Members asked about school-based trafficking, warning signs, social media platforms, and information-sharing about offenders across states; Fernandez-Rundle said more training and better interstate communication are still needed. The committee then took up CS for SB 656, which would codify FDLE’s Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Funding Program and rename/expand the online sting operations grant program to better support investigations, training, technology, and personnel. The bill was supported as a timely tool to combat online child exploitation and was reported favorably on a unanimous roll call. The committee also passed SB 892, which streamlines sentencing procedures for habitual felony offenders and related violent offender designations by clarifying notice and clemency-related paperwork requirements; it too was reported favorably unanimously. The remainder of the meeting focused on SB 164, which expands Florida’s Wrongful Death Act to allow parents to recover civil damages for the death of an unborn child. The sponsor said the bill is intended to recognize unborn children in civil law and allow recovery when a pregnancy is lost due to another’s negligence. Opponents from the ACLU, reproductive rights groups, medical insurers, and domestic violence advocates argued the bill is overly broad, could function as fetal personhood legislation, and could expose doctors, friends, family members, businesses, and abusive partners to lawsuits while chilling medical care, IVF, and pregnancy-related treatment. Supporters from pro-life organizations urged broader language and stronger protections for unborn children. No vote on SB 164 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, the department, along with our partners at CAP and other water users, have created the
• Members, I just want you guys to know that those cap rates have to go through a budget committee.
• To that point, I think that reduction is because of implementation of the income cap. Mr. Chairman?
• Am I correct, Richard, the income cap starts in fiscal 27? This is a 26 supplemental. Mr.
• So, in terms of ongoing initiatives, and this goes to the point we were talking about, the income cap

Bills: HB2053, HB2116, HB2148

Keywords: stormwater, recharge mapping, water resources, groundwater, appropriation, Arizona, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation, state budget, interstate water compact, Colorado River Compact, water litigation, A.R.S. 45-119, natural resources, water policy, river management

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 2116, which would appropriate $1 million in fiscal year 2027 from the State General Fund to the Colorado River Litigation Fund. The sponsor said it was a repeat of last year’s request and was intended as a backup if the seven Colorado River basin states cannot reach a new agreement. Arizona Department of Water Resources staff testified in support, explaining the state’s role in ongoing Colorado River negotiations and distinguishing the litigation fund from the executive’s separate Colorado River Protection Fund. The bill received a due pass recommendation on a 17-1 vote. The committee then took up House Bill 2053, which appropriates $100,000 to ADWR for updated stormwater recharge mapping and expands the mapping effort beyond state trust lands to private lands. The committee adopted Chairman Livingston’s amendment, which extended the coordination timeline to one year, broadened the agencies involved, and revised language on site eligibility and the definition of stormwater. The sponsor said the bill would help identify more places to capture stormwater for recharge, while ADWR testified neutral, supporting the mapping work but raising a concern about language tied to appropriable surface water because that is a legal determination for the courts. The amended bill passed 11-7. House Bill 2148 was then heard, proposing to give the legislature authority to appropriate non-custodial federal monies, with requirements for specifying purposes and allowing agencies to spend such funds if the legislature does not act. An amendment excluded university and Board of Regents research grants from the bill’s scope, which the chair said was intended to avoid implementation problems. The sponsor framed the bill as a transparency measure, and members discussed the large amount of federal pass-through funding Arizona receives. The amended bill passed 11-7. After the bills, the committee received a lengthy JLBC presentation comparing the executive budget with the JLBC baseline. Discussion focused on revenue forecasts, the impact of federal tax conformity, state employee health insurance costs, SNAP administrative and error-rate costs under H.R. 1, developmental disabilities and AHCCCS growth, and K-12/ESA funding trends. Members repeatedly criticized the executive budget for funding some ongoing costs on a one-year basis and expressed concern about rising caseloads and supplemental needs. No formal action was taken on the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• They still pay at the time of registration if it's the per-mile capped.
• Of course, the RUC charges are capped at that $143 mark.
• This would remove the payment cap for RUC participants, such as EV owners, and then they would pay for
• Of course, the reason for that is if you remove the cap, there are going to be participants that will
• They're staying below the cap.

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee first took up three highway naming resolutions on its consent calendar: ACR 109, SCR 78, and SCR 90. The committee approved the consent calendar with 11 aye votes and no no votes, then adjourned the bill-hearing portion. Members also recognized committee science fellow AJ Mendeola for his service, noting his contributions to bill analysis and staff support. The committee then held an informational hearing on alternatives to the gas tax, focused on the projected decline in fuel-tax revenue and the need for a more sustainable transportation funding model. The chair and invited experts described how inflation, improved fuel efficiency, and growth in electric and other alternative-fuel vehicles are eroding gas-tax revenues. Presenters from the National Conference of State Legislatures and the University of California discussed state options such as higher or indexed gas taxes, EV registration fees, road usage charges, delivery fees, public EV charging fees, transportation network company fees, and managed lanes, emphasizing tradeoffs among revenue adequacy, fairness, administrative cost, and public acceptance. Committee members raised concerns that mileage-based fees or EV fees could function as new taxes on commuters and lower-income drivers, especially if the gas tax is not repealed. Presenters responded that road usage charges are generally intended as replacements for the gas tax, not additions, and argued that mileage-based systems better preserve the user-pays principle while being less tied to vehicle fuel efficiency. They also noted that flat EV registration fees are easy to administer but can be less equitable because they are not linked to actual road use. Officials from Hawaii, Utah, and Oregon described their state programs and policy choices. Hawaii said its new road usage charge began July 1, 2025, for EVs, offers a choice between a per-mile charge and a flat annual fee through 2028, and will transition to mandatory EV participation before expanding to all light-duty vehicles by 2033. Utah described its voluntary EV road usage charge program, quarterly reporting, privacy protections, and legislative scenarios for removing the cap or making participation mandatory. Oregon outlined its constitutional cost-responsibility framework and broader transportation funding challenges, including reliance on user fees and limited use of general-fund support.

Transcript Highlights:

• At the end of the day, it should be a cap of what these accredited attorneys can charge these veterans
• At the end of the day, it should be a cap of what these accredited attorneys can charge these veterans
• At the end of the day, it should be a cap of what these accredited attorneys can charge these veterans
• At the end of the day, it should be a cap of what these accredited attorneys can charge these veterans
• At the end of the day, it should be a cap of what these accredited attorneys can charge these veterans

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And so, anytime you're talking about caps, whether it's my proposal on capping property taxes, there's
• , whether it's my proposal on caps, whether it's my proposal on capping<03:37:50.399> property
• rent increases over this arbitrary cap. rent increases over this arbitrary cap.
• , to if we're going to have a hard cap, to if we're going to have a hard cap, there<03:38:42.080>
• Otherwise, it's just simply a hard cap Otherwise, it's just simply a hard cap and<03:38:47.600><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There is a cap on how much admin can be used for this.
• There is a cap on how much admin can be used for this.
• Um, and those are all capped, for example, electricity's capped in the state reg, so we can't exceed
• Um, and those are all capped, for example, electricity's capped in the state reg, so we can't exceed
• ,<00:04:39.280> for Um and and those are all capped, for Um and and those are all capped,

Bills: SB8

Keywords: utilities, public service commission, energy regulation, appointment, emergency declaration, tax increases, consumer protection, Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:51 Approval of Minutes 00:02:07 Legislator Comments 00:02:18 LIHEAP Public Hearing 00:04:19 PSC Update on RS 26 SB 8 00:32:18 WaterStep Presentation 01:04:08, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And local school district reserve caps remain triggered in 2026-27.
• To the Chancellor’s Office on the proposals for growth over two years, the 10% cap...
• To the Chancellor’s Office on the proposals for growth over two years, the 10% cap...
• For growth over two years, the 10% cap—I captured those two specifically.
• The cap, and then there was a third item you mentioned that I did not note.

Summary: The committee heard an overview of the May Revision’s Proposition 98 changes for K-12 and community colleges. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, full payment of the prior settle-up, and larger deposits into the school rainy-day fund. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF updates were reasonable, but urged caution about the settle-up approach and recommended using more of the available funding to protect ongoing programs and build budget resilience. Members focused heavily on the size of the proposed $3.9 billion settle-up, the $10.3 billion reserve deposit, declining K-12 enrollment, and how much of the new funding should be ongoing versus one-time. The committee then reviewed the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described the May Revision’s higher SCFF COLA, additional funding for enrollment growth, a student support block grant, apprenticeship adjustments, and continued funding for deferred maintenance, Calbright, Common Cloud, and credit for prior learning. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended prioritizing the statutory COLA increase, noted that more than half of districts are already above current-year growth targets, and said the new adult learner demonstration project should be rejected because districts already have tools to support similar services. Members also discussed a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall, which Finance said was discovered too late for the May Revision and would need to be addressed later. Finally, the committee took up the proposed implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the California Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career to build eligibility and data systems, along with trailer bill changes to set up state approval processes. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, that California lacks the needed infrastructure, and that the state will need emergency regulations, data linkages, and ongoing funding beyond the one-time proposal. The LAO agreed that some initial funding is needed but warned that the amounts and ongoing costs remain uncertain and that the Legislature should carefully draft the trailer bill language. Members asked about timing, other states’ actions, and how the state would ensure the program is ready for students and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Kunesh-Podein then asked Representative Kresha whether he had discussed a cap on volume
• She asked whether a cap could help those smaller businesses without giving a big bonus to Total Wine
• Representative Kunesh-Podein then asked Representative Kresha about a possible cap on volume to help
• <00:20:16.200> I<00:20:16.240> mean, cap on volume that the sales do?
• I mean, cap on volume that the sales do?

Bills: HF4145, HF4009, HF4304, SF2511, HF4090, HF357, HF901

Keywords: alcohol consumption, nursing homes, assisted living, resident activities, Minnesota Statutes, seasonal liquor licenses, resorts, intoxicating liquor, county board, Brainerd, Northern Pacific Center, event center, liquor license, on-sale license, alcohol sales, special law, local option, Minnesota liquor law, chapter 340A, Sunday sales

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:16:32.400> along<00:16:32.640> with<00:16:32.760> the<00:16:32.839> cap
• <00:16:33.120> of to $200 per day along with the cap of to $200 per day along with the cap
• This would increase that penalty to $200 a day for failure to register with no cap.
• This would increase that penalty to $200 a day for failure to register with no cap.
• This would increase that penalty to $200 a day for failure to register with no cap.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As we will mention later in the handout, the new cap-and-invest structure under SB 840 changed how this
• The primary source is GGRF, though with the adoption of the new cap-and-invest structure, the amount
• So if we had never created GGRF, we'd never pass cap and trade, and then climate change happened and
• structure, and $500 million of which is coming from the interest earnings on the cap-and-invest fund
• I think, as mentioned earlier, cap and trade is a less reliable source for lots of reasons.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The joint Senate hearing of the Natural Resources and Water Committee and the Emergency Management Committee focused on wildfire resilience, with members discussing the SB 254 report on enhancing California’s response to natural catastrophes. Opening remarks emphasized the scale of wildfire damage, the need for prevention and preparedness, and concerns about the affordability and insurability crisis. Senators repeatedly contrasted the relatively small share of funding going to community hardening with the much larger amounts spent on utility wildfire mitigation and landscape-scale projects, and several members raised concerns about CEQA delays, one-time funding, and the need for more sustainable, ongoing financing. The Legislative Analyst’s Office presented an overview showing about $4.7 billion in state wildfire resilience appropriations from 2018-19 through 2025-26, with funding shifting from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to the General Fund and then to Proposition 4. LAO noted that only about $65 million had been specifically targeted to community hardening, while most funding went to forest health, fuels, research, and related programs. LAO also said one-time funding will decline in coming years and that future GGRF support is uncertain, though General Fund use is not legally precluded. Members asked about maintenance costs, polluter-pays ideas, and whether performance metrics should focus more on property and community risk reduction than acres treated. Cal Fire’s State Fire Marshal described the state’s community wildfire preparedness strategy, centered on home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation. He said roughly 4 million homes are in the wildland-urban interface, most built before modern fire-resistant standards, and argued that the state must move from response to prevention. He said Cal Fire is incorporating the SB 254 recommendations into its updated action plan, has streamlined some fuel-reduction projects under a recent executive proclamation, and is shifting some grant funding toward maintenance of existing treatments. Cal OES described the AB 38 pilot and FEMA hazard mitigation work, saying the pilot helped build tools and standards for home hardening but that federal approval delays remain a major barrier; the agency reported 155 hardened properties, 19 under construction, and 370 assessed and waiting. The Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force said it has coordinated more than $6 billion in state and federal investments, is moving toward regional block grants and better data-driven prioritization, and is developing separate community and landscape strategies. The hearing ended with discussion of modeling, data gaps, utility coordination, contractor capacity, and possible legislative or budget changes to better align funding and metrics with community safety outcomes.

Transcript Highlights:

• With the adoption of the new cap-and-invest structure, starting in 2026-27, the amount of GGRF revenues
• With the adoption of the new cap-and-invest structure, starting in 26-27, the amount of GGRF revenues
• . may vary depending on the projected revenues for the cap and invest system.
• There are some options that present themselves in terms of revisiting the cap-and-invest structure, the
• and trade... ...gets greater priority, a billion dollars a year approximately out of cap and trade,

Summary: The subcommittee began by announcing a change in the agenda order, moving item 6 ahead of item 1 and then item 7, and noting there would be no votes taken on any items that day. Item 6 covered a proposed operational efficiencies control section for the Natural Resources Agency that would let multiple departments jointly fund landscape-scale or multi-jurisdictional projects and allow Finance to transfer climate bond funds to a lead state entity. The LAO said the proposal was reasonable but suggested the Legislature consider requiring summary notification on how it is used; Finance said it would consider that request. Item 7 focused on the 2026-27 biodiversity and nature-based solutions spending plan. Finance and the Wildlife Conservation Board described the climate bond funding for habitat restoration, wildlife crossings, public access, tribal nature-based solutions, and related work, including $111 million proposed for WCB and $30 million for Salton Sea habitat and public access projects. The LAO supported the overall approach but flagged the San Andreas Corridor Program as an area where the Legislature may want to specify geographic priorities. Members discussed the pace of Salton Sea work and whether the proposed projects would count toward disadvantaged community goals. Item 8 addressed Cal Fire’s aviation contract and staffing needs for wildfire response. Cal Fire said year-round fire activity, a larger and more complex aircraft fleet, and labor market pressures justified the proposed contract increase, including more mechanics, pilots, and maintenance support. The LAO recommended approval, saying the proposal addressed health and safety concerns. Members asked about contractor staffing, competition in the bidding process, and future technology for early fire detection and suppression. The committee then took up item 1 on golden mussel containment. Fish and Wildlife described the invasive species’ spread in the Delta, the task force and response framework, and a request for eight new positions funded by Prop. 4 to support control plans, outreach, monitoring, research, and coordination with partners and law enforcement. Members pressed the department on whether the state should fund more direct decontamination infrastructure and grants to local water managers, and on the realistic goal of containing the mussel. The chair and several members emphasized the urgency of the threat and requested an itemized breakdown of the $20 million request. The hearing then moved to a broader LAO overview of wildfire prevention and response funding, where the LAO summarized the state’s funding mix and warned that ongoing wildfire resilience funding will likely decline as one-time bond and GGRF funds are exhausted, prompting discussion of long-term funding options and the balance between prevention, suppression, and community hardening.

Transcript Highlights:

• Note that it is subject to a cap. It's up to 5% of the unweighted foundation amount.
• Note that it is subject<00:21:36.960> to<00:21:37.120> a<00:21:37.280> cap.
• It's up to 5% of the subject to a cap.
• <00:31:30.799> homestead<00:31:31.279> exemption, with the capped homestead exemption
• , with the capped homestead exemption, establishment<00:31:33.520> of<00:31:33.679> a<00

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The meeting was a high-level walkthrough of Act 73, with staff from Legislative Council and the Joint Fiscal Office summarizing major education policy, governance, tax, and fiscal changes. The presentation covered class-size minimums and related enforcement, creation of a state aid for school construction program, narrowed tuition eligibility for approved independent schools, changes to State Board of Education appointments, special education reporting and staffing, and a new report on standards for schools deemed small or sparse by necessity. It also noted that some provisions take effect immediately or in 2025, while the major funding and tax changes are contingent on new school districts being operational and a foundation formula report being received, with most of those changes targeted for July 1, 2028. The central fiscal change described was a move from the current locally voted budget and varying homestead tax system to a foundation formula. Under that model, districts would receive an educational opportunity payment based on a base amount per pupil, adjusted by student weights for factors such as pre-K, economic disadvantage, English learner status, and special education, with small-school and sparsity weights replaced by support grants. Districts could still seek limited supplemental district spending above the foundation amount, subject to a cap and a uniform method for raising the funds, with excess collections recaptured at the state level. The presenters also described transition mechanisms to phase in the new system over several years. The tax section explained that Act 73 would replace the current property tax credit with a homestead exemption and create a new non-homestead residential classification intended for second homes and short-term rentals, though further statutory or regulatory work would still be needed to implement it. The JFO presentation emphasized that the act also creates regional assessment districts for reappraisals and includes a transition to smooth changes in education tax rates. No committee vote or formal action was taken during the presentation; it was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 40 is a meaningful step forward by capping insulin cost and improving access.
• statistics can be deadly because California, unlike 28 other states, has yet to pass insulin co-pay cap
• I therefore ask for your aye vote to cap insulin co-pays at $35 a month. Thank you. Thank you.
• It's time to cap the co-pay, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
• you don't take it you're you're going to not be with us any longer this is not optional it's time to cap

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard several bills focused on health care access, oversight, and affordability. The first major item was SB 306 by Senator Becker, a prior authorization reform bill. Becker and supporters, including the California Medical Association and California Hospital Association, argued that prior authorization delays care, adds administrative burden, and can lead to serious patient harm. The bill was substantially amended late in the process to have DMHC and CDI identify services and drugs to exempt from prior authorization based on utilization data, with safeguards for fraud, waste, abuse, and patient safety. Health plans and insurers opposed the measure as written, saying prior authorization remains an important utilization-management tool and raising concerns about the 90% threshold, drug inclusion, and how modifications are counted. The committee also heard SB 35 by Senator Umberg, which would let cities or counties inspect unlicensed sober living homes if DHCS does not act promptly on complaints. Supporters said the bill would address weak enforcement and protect residents, while one behavioral health directors group opposed it unless amended. Members generally supported the measure, citing problems with unlicensed facilities and the need for local enforcement backup. The committee then heard SB 62, which would codify California’s updated essential health benefits benchmark if approved by the federal government. Senator Wiener said the package would add hearing aids, durable medical equipment, and infertility treatment including IVF, acknowledging that premiums could rise but arguing the benefits were worth it. Health Access California and other advocates supported the bill, while the California Family Council opposed it. The committee also took up SB 596 by Senator Menjivar, which would tighten the rules for hospitals claiming an on-call list as a defense to nurse staffing ratio penalties. Supporters, including nurses and SEIU, said hospitals have used vague or ineffective on-call practices to avoid accountability and that the bill would improve enforcement and patient safety. Hospital groups opposed it, arguing that staffing is highly dynamic, that hospitals need flexibility to manage acuity and emergencies, and that the bill could increase costs and interfere with collective bargaining arrangements. Finally, the committee heard SB 40 by Senator Wiener, the Insulin Affordability Act, which would cap insulin copays at $35 for a 30-day supply and restrict step therapy unless a plan covers at least one insulin in each drug type. Supporters, including physicians, diabetes advocates, nurses, students, and patient groups, said insulin is life-saving and too often unaffordable, forcing patients to ration or choose between medication and basic needs. There was no formal opposition testimony, though one member questioned why insulin remains so expensive. The committee also began discussion of SB 363, but the transcript cuts off before that bill’s full presentation or any action on the measures. No votes are recorded in the portion provided, and several bills were noted as consent items earlier in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• For the film tax credit expansion, it increases the allocation cap under the Film Tax Credit Program
• To the extent that the cap-and-trade program and the GGRF funds collected from that are the major effort
• During upcoming cap-and-trade negotiations, we urge the Legislature to support this funding.
• m an environmental scientist at the Department of Fish and Wildlife and here speaking on behalf of CAPS
• and invest as the GGRF funding is Of what has been dubbed cap and invest as the GGRF funding has looked

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the final three-party budget agreement and related trailer bills, with the Department of Finance outlining the major budget bill and omnibus measures. Finance described a package built around balancing the state budget amid economic uncertainty, preserving core health and safety-net programs, and making significant ongoing reductions in some state programs. The budget bill included major items such as shifting $1 billion from the General Fund to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for Cal Fire, funding universal transitional kindergarten, deferring some UC and CSU funding, supporting foster care and homelessness programs, providing Proposition 36 implementation funding, and achieving Medi-Cal savings through changes to benefits and eligibility. The committee also heard that votes on the budget bills were expected later in the week and the following Monday. Finance then walked through the trailer bills, including health, human services, early learning, education, resources, energy, transportation, labor, housing, tax, public safety, courts, general government, cannabis, and energy-related measures. Notable provisions included a Medi-Cal enrollment freeze for certain adults, new premiums and benefit changes for some immigrants, child care COLA changes, education funding for literacy, teacher support, universal meals, and community college student support, as well as resource and climate measures affecting Cal Fire staffing and energy permitting. The housing trailer bill drew the most discussion, with provisions on CEQA streamlining, a vehicle miles traveled mitigation banking program, a renters’ credit trigger, and a six-year moratorium on new residential building standards. Members also discussed a film tax credit expansion, cannabis enforcement funding, a tribal police pilot program, and changes to tax policy, including military retirement income exclusions and wildfire settlement payment exclusions. Committee members largely praised the staff and the budget process, but several raised concerns and asked detailed questions, especially about the housing trailer bill’s new wage standards, tribal consultation provisions, and possible effects on prevailing wage protections. Finance explained that the housing language was intended to set wage floors for market-rate projects receiving CEQA streamlining, with different county-based tiers and a notwithstanding clause preserving existing prevailing wage laws. Members also questioned the size and timing of funding for the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, Clean Cars for All, Proposition 36, and the film tax credit expansion. Other members highlighted support for public safety, veterans’ tax relief, child care providers, housing production, and higher education, while some expressed concern that the budget’s policy changes were being negotiated too quickly or without enough stakeholder input.

Transcript Highlights:

• at stake, and his only ask of the committee was that they have time to amend the bill and set a THC cap
• He said some people need a higher milligram, and that putting a cap on this is insane.
• c><00:29:51.279> on<00:29:51.519> this<00:29:51.840> is milligram it putting a cap
• Higden testify that we should probably have a cap, and then we had Dei testify that we can't cap milligrams
• , another said milligrams can't be capped because people need different doses, another wanted CHFS to

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up Senate Bill 202, adopting a committee substitute before hearing testimony. Senator Julie Rocky Adams explained that the substitute would require the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to promulgate regulations by January 1, 2026 for intoxicating hemp-derived beverages, direct the University of Kentucky to study manufacturing, testing, distribution, sales, and consumer effects of those beverages, and impose a moratorium on their sale until July 1, 2026. Supporters, including Rep. Matt Cook, said the measure was intended as a consumer-protection step rather than a ban, citing concerns about youth access, inconsistent labeling, and the need for a clearer regulatory framework. Members asked about the legal status of the products, whether the bill could unintentionally sweep in non-intoxicating hemp beverages, and whether there was evidence of harm. Senators were told the products are legal under the federal farm bill loophole, but that testing has shown THC levels on sampled cans did not match labels and that current regulations do not specifically address intoxicating hemp-derived beverages. Senator Higdon said CHFS had already been authorized to regulate hemp products and was moving forward with regulations and enforcement, while Senator Meredith questioned whether a moratorium would unfairly punish businesses that had already invested in the market and suggested setting a THC standard instead. Public testimony then shifted to industry opposition. Jim Higdon of Cornbread Hemp said his company had invested heavily in a beverage line and argued the moratorium would function like a ban and harm small businesses. Dee Taylor of 502 Hemp and the Kentucky Hemp Association also opposed the moratorium, saying existing rules already require age limits, behind-the-counter sales, and licensed retailers, and arguing that a cap on milligrams would be preferable to a shutdown. He said retailers were seeing approved and unapproved products in the market and urged work with the Cabinet and ABC rather than a moratorium.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the other is that ROE is capped.
• And the other is that ROE is capped.
• And the other is that ROE is capped.
• And the other is that ROE is capped.
• <02:14:43.280> um Uh they are capped and um Uh they are capped and um So,<02:14:46.320>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, it kind of created a cap, if you will.
• And it is capped at $131.88, and that is the electric vehicle fee.
• Um and it is capped at for the states.
• It was the road usage charge is capped at 138, which is the EV fee.
• Annual electric vehicle registration fee, which would be the cap.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It lowers the maximum lifetime credit cap on state grant awards from 180 credits to 120 credits.
• with students when they came to the cap with students when they came to the cap uh<00:41:34.160>
• That's what that cap of 1% means.
• was doing a a cap on the 4-year tuition. was doing a a cap on the 4-year tuition.
• So, uh, University that cap of 1% means.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 2312 and first adopted the DE1 amendment, after which the amended bill was discussed. Nonpartisan fiscal staff walked through the spreadsheet and explained the bill’s higher education budget changes, including increases for state grants and tribal college assistance, unchanged funding for several existing programs, and reductions or eliminations for items such as state work study, summer academic enrichment, student loan counseling, concurrent enrollment, and the student parent support initiative. Staff also noted transfers to special revenue funds, the cancellation and reappropriation of ALS research funding, and a new licensing/registration revenue item. The committee was told the bill met the committee’s zero target overall, with a net general fund change of zero relative to the February forecast, while also adding some non-general fund expenditures for program licensing and registration. Members asked several questions about the transfers and specific line items, including whether any new special revenue accounts were being created, the foster care wraparound services line, and the treatment of the University of Minnesota and Centric Care partnership. Staff explained that the transfers generally did not create new accounts, that some items were not in the base, and that the U of M/Centric Care partnership was a one-time appropriation in the prior bill but was now being built into the base at a different amount. The University of Minnesota section also included new or continued funding for medical school development, health training restoration, emergency assistance grants, ALS research, and a weather resiliency program, while the Mayo Foundation section eliminated funding for Mayo Medical School and the Mayo family medicine residency program. The policy portion of the DE1 was then introduced. It included a maximum tuition and fee amount for state grants, direct appropriation of emergency assistance grants to Minnesota State, a juvenile justice appropriation for Metropolitan State University, and the ALS research reappropriation to the University of Minnesota. It also contained repealers for unfunded programs, including a delayed repealer for the student parent support initiative. In the higher education policy article, the bill would allow Minnesota State to offer applied doctoral degrees in cybersecurity, make technical changes to hunger-free campus and sexual misconduct procedures, extend pregnant and parenting student protections to private institutions, allow OHE to retain up to 10% of certain competitive grants for administration, consolidate reports, change the state grant formula so negative FAFSA contributions count as zero, and reduce the state grant lifetime credit cap from 180 to 120 credits. The Northstar Promise provisions would limit tuition and fees to resident rates and require MnState, and request the University of Minnesota, to ensure eligible students receive the benefit.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is this basically implementing the RSA that established the county cap at 2%?
• <02:02:57.000> cap<02:02:57.239> it's<02:02:57.440> established<02:02:57.840
• > an<02:02:57.960> RSA the county cap it's established an RSA the county cap it's established
• When you look at page 903, the 129, so the county cap is essentially for that year.
• It's been set at $5 million. applied um to the county cap that's been applied um to the county cap that's

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first recessed briefly, then took up HB 570, the prescription drug affordability board (PDAB). The chair and several members discussed the House amendment to repeal the board, which removed the fiscal note. The main concern raised was that the PDAB had not yet produced a clear business case showing value for the taxpayer investment, despite several years of work and four annual reports. Supporters of the repeal said the board’s recent report was largely redundant and that the board should either demonstrate a strong return on investment or be shut down; others cautioned against discarding the program too quickly and urged more time to refine the mission and legislative language. No vote was taken, and the committee appeared to agree to retain the bill for further work, with the possibility of revisiting it in a formal executive session on Tuesday. Members also shifted into discussion of HB 2, beginning with Section 85 on opioid abatement trust fund dollars for shelter programs. Department of Health and Human Services officials explained that the provision would provide $10 million from the opioid abatement trust fund, replacing general funds in the governor’s budget, while also noting an additional $2.5 million prioritized needs request for shelter care that was already fully funded. Committee members asked about shelter bed capacity, job placement efforts, and the remaining balance in the opioid fund; DHHS said there are 934 contracted beds and that case management includes help with housing and employment. Officials also said the current proposed budget includes another $1 million later in HB 2 from the opioid fund. The committee then began discussion of Sections 86 through 87, which would preserve the department’s ability to transfer funds between personnel lines. DHHS said the provision is operationally critical and that losing it would make it extremely difficult to manage the department, though it would not have a direct fiscal impact. The next item introduced was Section 88, extending a suspension related to eligibility for services until July 1, 2027; DHHS indicated that if the suspension were not continued, it would likely increase expenditures for Community Mental Health Centers and potentially others. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• They cap it out. So we’ll see how those figures stack up in a little bit here.
• They cap it out. So we'll see $100,000. They cap it out.
• That's where they capped.
• They calculate the cap for them, but then they need to determine in their bills where that cap cuts off
• So they're they think will go over cap.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 209, which would require schools seeking building aid for construction or reconstruction projects to use an owner’s project manager. The chair explained an amendment that would remove the bill’s requirement that the manager be engaged before application and instead revert to current law, while updating the project threshold from the older $1 million figure to a more current amount and clarifying that the manager’s role is to protect the project owner’s interests. Members asked about the cost of hiring a project manager over several years before a project is funded, the 1.5% fee in rule, and whether the rules already define the manager’s duties. The chair said the amendment addressed those concerns by leaving the timing to current law and relying on existing administrative rules for qualifications and responsibilities. The committee then voted 18-0 to adopt the amendment and 18-0 to recommend SB 209 OTPA, placing it on the consent calendar. The committee then moved to SB 99, which concerns allowing students enrolled in career and technical education programs at receiving comprehensive high schools to take additional academic courses there. The chair said the bill was intended to make it easier for students to access CTE without being blocked by scheduling conflicts in their sending schools, and to clarify how agreements between sending and receiving districts would work. He described concerns about the bill’s cost formula, transportation, part-time versus full-time status, and whether the proposal could unintentionally create open-enrollment or athletic-transfer issues. He said the amendment would mirror existing treatment for homeschool and charter school students, use a familiar funding model, and limit participation to students already enrolled in one or more CTE classes at the receiving school. The chair also emphasized that comprehensive high schools already have a statutory definition and that the bill would help more students participate in CTE, which he said currently reaches only a relatively small share of students statewide. He noted that transportation would be covered only when a CTE bus is available, otherwise students would be responsible for arranging travel as under current practice. After brief discussion, the committee voted 18-0 to adopt the amendment and 18-0 to recommend SB 99 OTPA, also placing it on the consent calendar.