Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:54:36.319><c> you</c> data that would be required thank you data that would be required thank you
• There was a $900 million surplus that was put into a special fund.
• HB 471, requiring the Board of Education to establish a Korean language program.
• HB 471, requiring the Board of Education to establish a Korean language program.
• </c><01:22:31.960><c> Boe</c> adopted thank you HB 471 requiring Boe adopted thank you HB 471 requiring

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Education met on January 30 and heard testimony on several bills, beginning with an announcement asking testifiers and members to keep remarks brief because of weather. The vice chair also explained that HB 440, relating to immigration issues in schools and state hospitals, was removed from the agenda because the proposal would not create meaningful legal protections and immigration policy is governed by federal law. The committee then moved through a series of education-related measures, with testimony largely from the Department of Education, the School Facilities Authority, the Attorney General’s office, unions, advocacy groups, and individual testifiers. On HB 330, concerning school impact fees, the School Facilities Authority supported the bill as aligning policy with implementation, while the Tax Foundation of Hawaii said the fee accounts have accumulated large balances, including more than $20 million in impact fee funds and nearly $9 million from predecessor fair-share contributions, and urged that collected money be used rather than left idle. DOE said it would follow up on the balance and why it was not being used. On HB 1188, dealing with workforce housing, DOE and the Charter School Commission offered comments or support, the Attorney General suggested clarifying the phrase “within commuting distance” by using a mileage standard and adding repayment language, and HSTA, HGEA, and others supported the bill, with HSTA saying teachers need housing to be able to live and work in Hawaii. On HB 624 and HB 625, both related to school psychologists, DOE said it would participate in a work group on the pathway bill and supported the incentive program bill; school psychologists and related groups supported the measures, while one testifier said DOE should not lead the work group alone because school psychologists may work in many education settings beyond DOE schools. The committee also heard HB 1314 on youth mental health in schools. DOE described its student support process, universal screening tools, and behavioral health services, saying schools already identify and respond to concerns and that staff are trained to report issues, while the Attorney General warned the bill could expose schools to liability and recommended a broad liability waiver. Testimony was mixed, with several supporters and one opponent. On HB 616, concerning school safety and harassment protections for educational workers, the Attorney General sought clarifying amendments on harassment definitions, temporary restraining order costs, and paid leave, while HSTA, HGEA, and individual teachers strongly supported the bill, describing harassment incidents and arguing for a standardized statewide response. DOE said it already has reporting pathways, visitor codes of conduct, trespass notices, and an ethics hotline, but acknowledged implementation varies by school and that staff can escalate concerns if needed. The committee also began hearing HB 88 on a three-year pilot program for athletic travel, but the transcript cuts off before that bill’s testimony is completed or any votes are taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• that reporting requirement for another five years.
• And it could require some kind of visual aid of some sort.
• We have one surplus; it's about $24 billion. That's what we call the surplus.
• But then we also have another surplus that we...
• SB 324 by Cochourse, relating to requiring...

Bills: HJR138 , HB42 , HB 104 , HB 129 , HB677 , HB426 , HB668 , HB1699 , HB2017 , HB2128 , HB2038 , HB3783 , HB3717 , HB2316 , HB3686 , HB2563 , HB3883 , HB4021 , HB2788 , HB2663 , HB3305 , HB3173 , HB3474 , HB 1105 , HB3531 , HB3490 , HB3597 , HB 1295 , HB3512 , HB3010 , HB3112 , HB4215 , HB3223 , HB3464 , HB3120 , HB4214 , HB4511 , HB3704 , HB4081 , HB4783 , HB4063 , HB2783 , HB4937 , HB5085 , HB2510 , HB3426 , HB4361 , HB 1169 , HB2516 , HB2347 , HB4034 , HB4700 , HB3560 , HB5150 , HB3860 , HB3146 , HB3924 , HCR98 , HCR92 , HB1520 , HB1545 , HB5265 , HB1887 , HB1914 , HB2402 , HB2306 , HB2350 , HB3000 , HB3237 , HB3326 , HB3211 , HB 1056 , HB2081 , HB2187 , HB3092 , HB3308 , HB3526 , HB3750 , HB4219 , HB4230 , HB4290 , HB5238 , HB4804 , HB4749 , HB245 , HB1465 , HB294 , HB793 , HB809 , HB3928 , HB334 , HB2037 , HB1973 , HB285 , HB4341 , HB 1043 , HB 1234 , HB 1193 , HB1729 , HB2498 , HB1314 , HB1353 , HB3960 , HB3923 , HB2221 , HB2517 , HB2518 , HB2213 , HB5092 , HB3748 , HB5246 , HB4344 , HB1482 , HB4044 , HB2702 , HB4264 , HB2807 , HB2898 , HB3181 , HB3250 , HB2091 , HB2115 , HB2542 , HB2768 , HB3349 , HB4406 , HB1593 , HB1899 , HB3133 , HB3133 , HB4960 , HB3214 , HB2145 , HB 1201 , HB5061 , SB29 , SB879 , SB65 , SB1745 , SB412 , SB412 , SB1746 , SB1238 , SB1341 , SB522 , SB1532 , SB1378 , SB1062 , SB2066 , SB1963 , SB2204 , SB1366 , SB2077 , SB1967 , SB1151 , HB1618 , HB2156 , HB2615 , HB2615 , HB2349 , HB1926 , HB569 , HB1762 , HB38 , HJR138 , HB42 , HB 104 , HB 104 , HB 129 , HB677 , HB426 , HB668 , HB1699 , HB2017 , HB2128 , HB2038 , HB3783 , HB3717 , HB2316 , HB3686 , HB2563 , HB3883 , HB4021 , HB2788 , HB2663 , HB2663 , HB3305 , HB3173 , HB3474 , HB 1105 , HB3531 , HB3531 , HB3490 , HB3490 , HB3597 , HB 1295 , HB3512 , HB3010 , HB3112 , HB4215 , HB3223 , HB3223 , HB3464 , HB3120 , HB4214 , HB4511 , HB3704 , HB4081 , HB4783 , HB4063 , HB2783 , HB4937 , HB5085 , HB2510 , HB3426 , HB4361 , HB 1169 , HB2516 , HB2347 , HB4034 , HB4700 , HB3560 , HB5150 , HB3860 , HB3146 , HB3924 , HCR98 , HCR92

Keywords: carbon tax, carbon emissions, greenhouse gas, climate policy, fuel tax, emissions tax, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, tax limitation, environmental tax, fossil fuels, energy policy, legislative taxing authority, ballot proposition, constitutional amendment, higher education, funding, financial allocation, state budget, Texas A&M University

Transcript Highlights:

• Defined scope requirement.
• As we noted earlier, we haven’t met our acre or water requirements or our habitat requirements yet, which
• will require likely hundreds of millions of dollars from the state to fulfill those requirements.
• As we noted earlier, we haven't met our acre or water requirements or our habitat requirements yet, which
• will require likely hundreds of millions of dollars from the state to fulfill those requirements.

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is narrowly tailored and applies only to the original owner while requiring proof that the
• As noted by the author, this is the third iteration of this bill and a five-year extension as required
• The City of San Diego is strongly supportive of the Surplus Lands Act.
• The other thing that it requires is looking at how we ensure that victims are compensated.
• So I'm not sure where that number is coming from, but it should not require that.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 13, 2026, and began by taking up a large consent calendar, moving a first group of bills to the floor consent calendar and a second group by due pass. The committee then heard and advanced a series of measures covering housing, public safety, health care, education, and local government issues. Among the bills discussed were AB 2641 on a sales tax exemption for pawnbroker redemptions, AB 2525 on a narrow Surplus Lands Act exemption for Mission Bay Park, AB 1732 and AB 2433 on student housing and the Affordable Homes Bonus Law, AB 2055 on boating safety and enforcement, AB 1579 on children’s crisis residential services, AB 2139 on a Surplus Lands Act amendment for an Inland Empire soccer project, AB 2041 on EMS reporting, AB 1973 on reproductive health scope for advanced practice clinicians, AB 1929 on health plan investment disclosures, AB 2700 on utility rates and wildfire victim compensation, AB 1809 on school job order contracting, SB 73 on election security, AB 2418 on commercial building permit timelines, AB 1970 on step therapy limits for serious mental illness and substance use treatment, AB 2361 on peer-to-peer vehicle-sharing liability, AB 1976 on bike and pedestrian project approvals, AB 2110 on tax increment financing for workforce housing, and AB 2146 on supportive housing documentation and vacancy rules. Testimony was generally supportive for the measures heard. Authors and sponsors emphasized consumer fairness, housing production, public safety, access to care, and administrative streamlining. Supporters included local governments, housing advocates, school districts, law enforcement groups, health care organizations, and affected individuals. AB 2700 drew especially extensive public testimony from wildfire survivors and local officials who urged stronger compensation for victims of PG&E-caused fires and relief from high utility costs. AB 2034 and AB 1790 were raised during public comment on bills not heard in committee, with several industry groups opposing AB 2034 and both supporters and opponents speaking on AB 1790’s Waters Edge issue. Most bills were reported out of committee on due pass motions, with several noted as amended or with members not voting on particular roll calls. The committee also read and approved a lengthy suspense calendar, then opened public comment on bills not presented that day before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• The name of the new account is the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account — long name.
• To do structural reform almost always requires some sort of compromise.
• s pointing out the obscene surplus that led to, that was a significant contributor to Prop 13.
• or court requirements.
• We have a separate issue of what to do with revenue surges to the surplus holding account.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee held an informational hearing on California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or Rainy Day Fund, with presentations from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, Practical Idealism Economics, and the California Budget and Policy Center. The LAO explained that California’s revenue volatility is driven largely by the personal income tax and high-income capital gains, and described how Proposition 2 deposits work, the 10% cap on the BSA, and the LAO’s evaluation that the current policy would cover only about 30% of funding shortfalls over 50 years in an unfavorable benchmark scenario. The LAO recommended raising the cap to 50% over time and either adopting broader deposit rules or depositing all excess capital gains. Finance said the administration had proposed raising the cap to 20% and excluding reserve deposits and withdrawals from the state appropriations limit. The Budget Center supported reserve reform but stressed balancing savings with current service needs and noted other tools such as revenue changes, borrowing from special funds, and the new Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account. Committee members debated the purpose and adequacy of reserves, the role of the state appropriations limit, and whether reserves should be paired with broader fiscal reforms. Several senators argued that reserves are needed to preserve core services during downturns and that the current system is too complicated and too small, while others emphasized the need to protect spending on health care, child care, and other services for working Californians. There was also discussion of infrastructure spending as a possible countercyclical tool and whether deposits for infrastructure should be treated differently under reserve and SAL rules. The LAO said the Legislature has flexibility in defining infrastructure spending and suggested an infrastructure fund could function as a separate reserve-like mechanism. A significant portion of the hearing turned to broader tax and budget policy, including repeated references to Proposition 13, the state’s revenue structure, business departures, unemployment insurance financing, and the impact of inequality on California’s fiscal resilience. Some members argued Prop. 13 was driven by affordability concerns for homeowners, while others said it created loopholes that benefit corporations and constrain local revenue. The hearing did not take any vote or formal action; it remained informational, with the chair indicating the committee would continue questions and public comment after the panel discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill relates to the eligibility of food banks to receive surplus goods through the Department of
• Clerk: HB 2723 by Cunningham, relating to the requirement that a person submit an application for an
• This bill requires utilities to provide information on how customers can Rep.
• Clerk: HB 1851 by Morales of Maverick, relating to disposition of certain surplus motor vehicles and
• This bill allows public schools to be able to purchase surplus vehicles for campus safety purposes.

Transcript Highlights:

• You've got dune buggies and things like that that don't require them.
• You've got dune buggies and things like that that don't require them.
• </c> you're required to have windshields. you're required to have windshields.
• </c> one of the requirements. one of the requirements.
• Yes, or I guess you could as long as it meets the requirements there.

Bills: HB461 , HB465 , HB469 , HB473 , SB94 , SB303 , HB461 , HB465 , HB469 , HB473 , SB94 , SB303

Committee: House Public Safety and Homeland Security

Keywords: fundraising, Alabama Educational Television, state authority, public broadcasting, legislation influence, emergency management, public funds, educational materials, promotional materials, state agency, ambulance services, balance billing, health insurance, emergency transportation, reimbursement rates, water recreation, public access, water bodies, recreational use, water commissions

Transcript Highlights:

• community engagement requirements.
• A doctor's prescription is not required.
• It returns all surplus state administrative facility dispositions to the general surplus real property
• It returns all surplus state administrative facility dispositions to the general surplus real property
• They are required to consult under the Section 106 process. They are required to administer...

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum present, approved the journal, and moved through routine orders before taking up committee reports, gubernatorial messages, House messages, and first and second reading calendars. Several bills were advanced, including appropriations measures and enrolled bills transmitted to the House, Governor, or Secretary of State. The chamber then proceeded to third reading and final action on a series of bills, with debate focused largely on budget priorities, Medicaid, firearms preemption, medical education funding, rural health, and kratom regulation. The Senate passed Senate Bill 1420, creating a dedicated funding source for medical education beginning in 2028; Senate Bill 1430, strengthening state firearms preemption enforcement and authorizing penalties and injunctions against local violations; Senate Bill 1432, an appropriation for Health and Welfare indirect support and related modernization items; Senate Bill 1433, a large Medicaid enhancement budget with discussion of MMIS procurement, estate recovery, program integrity, hospital assessment fund alignment, and population/cost growth; Senate Bill 1434, the Division of Welfare budget reflecting SNAP administrative cost changes and Medicaid eligibility system updates; Senate Bill 1437, an appropriation for Idaho State Police tied to DNA collection for sexual battery and domestic violence offenses; Senate Bill 1439, delaying a school facilities model report deadline to 2027; and Senate Bill 1264 as amended, creating a rural health transformation account and legislative oversight committee for federal rural health funds. Most of these measures passed on party-line or split votes, while SB 1437 and SB 1439 passed unanimously. The most extended debate centered on Senate Bill 1264, where supporters said the bill would give the Legislature oversight over already-awarded federal rural health money and help ensure sustainable uses, while opponents argued it would deepen federal debt and create a process that could still leave control with the executive branch. Another major debate was on Senate Bill 1418, the kratom consumer protection bill, which would restrict sales to adults 21 and older, set product limits and labeling standards, and allow inspections and enforcement against synthetic or adulterated products. Supporters framed it as a consumer protection and harm-reduction measure; opponents raised concerns about warrantless inspections, lack of pharmacy board support, and whether the bill would effectively normalize kratom. The transcript ends during continued debate on SB 1418, before a final vote is taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then if they are unable to find insurance with a surplus lines carrier, they can come to the Fair
• So, as we're required by statute and as designed by statute, we went to the admitted market.
• E&S, access and surplus lines carriers can get access to it.
• E&S, access and surplus lines carriers can get access to it.
• Our policy requires direct physical loss.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the California Fair Plan, focusing on its rapid growth, financial stability, rate adequacy, and role in the homeowners insurance market. Committee members described the Fair Plan as increasingly functioning as a “safety net” rather than a true insurer of last resort, while Fair Plan representatives said the plan was created by statute, is privately funded by member insurers, and is now taking on more business because of non-renewals and limited availability in the admitted market. They emphasized that the plan offers residential and commercial coverage, but not a full HO-3 homeowners policy, and said expanding into that product would require major new staffing, vendor, and claims infrastructure. A major topic was pricing and assessments. Fair Plan officials said their rates have historically lagged their projected costs, especially because reinsurance costs were not fully recoverable in rates until recently. They reviewed recent filings, including a 2023 filing that was reduced from an estimated 80% need to a 35.8% request after working with the Department of Insurance. They also discussed the plan’s reinsurance tower, a new catastrophe bond, and the $1 billion assessment triggered by the 2025 Los Angeles fires after losses exceeded available capital. They said AB 226 helped secure a $600 million line of credit to reduce assessment risk, and they thanked lawmakers for supporting that measure. Members raised constituent concerns about coverage limits, underinsurance, and misinformation from agents. Fair Plan officials said they do not deny applicants because their homes exceed the plan’s $3.3 million limit; instead, policyholders can combine Fair Plan coverage with excess insurance. They said broker training and webinars are being expanded to address misunderstandings, and they noted that raising the cap would depend on achieving actuarially sound rates and sufficient financial capacity. Members also asked about smoke claims from the 2025 fires; the Fair Plan said it has paid covered smoke claims under California law, reviewed closed claims, and removed the “sight and smell” language from its policy form after litigation and CDI action. Public commenters from the insurance industry, builders, agriculture, and nonprofit service providers largely urged faster depopulation of the Fair Plan, more adequate rates, and reforms to the clearinghouse process. Some warned that the Fair Plan is now competing with the admitted market because it can be cheaper in some areas, while others said the plan is still essential because the private market is not serving high-risk or specialized properties. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, but committee members and Fair Plan representatives agreed to continue working on rate, transparency, and depopulation issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a constitutional requirement in the state of Minnesota, as it is in just about every other state
• The first bill that you mentioned would require a police officer, if they suspect and find probable cause
• Vet is violent crime enforcement. constitutional requirement in the state constitutional requirement
• <00:02:53.840><c> would</c> bill that you mentioned that would bill that you mentioned that would require
• a police officer if they suspect require a police officer if they suspect and<00:02:58.239><c> find<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're still required to, sorry, we are still required to keep the commission meeting notes and some of
• We're required to keep them even if they're digitized.
• Depending on the settlement agreement, if we destroy the evidence, we're currently getting ready to surplus
• We're getting ready to surplus a lot of alcohol, I think 12 pallets. We're trying to get rid of it.
• We might say we're not going to surplus it. We're selling it.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We now project to end fiscal years 26-27 with a surplus of $3.7 billion, which is $1.3 billion more than
• Left unspent, that surplus carries over into fiscal years '28 and '29.
• If we were to not include discretionary inflation, which, as a reminder, legislators are not required
• </c> reporting requirements. reporting requirements.
• </c> in the bank as a surplus. in the bank as a surplus.

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then, speaking of by fund, the next three pages of this packet are, we'll call them surplus statements
• And then, speaking of by fund, the next three pages of this packet are, we'll call them surplus statements
• The next three pages of this packet are, we'll call them surplus statements of the Education Trust Fund
• Uh, well, I actually have an example of the Fish and Game surplus statement here in a couple pages.
• Uh, well, I actually have an example of the Fish and Game surplus statement here in a couple pages.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting was an introductory House Finance Division Two session focused on committee procedures, staffing, and the upcoming budget process. Mickey Landrian, the division analyst, introduced himself and explained that the subcommittee operates more informally than the full committee, does not hold executive sessions or public hearings itself, and makes recommendations back to House Finance. Members were told that public hearings on legislation occur in the full committee, while Division Two will hold work sessions and vote on recommendations such as ought to pass, retain, or ITL. The chair also welcomed new members and a new clerk, and noted that meetings will be recorded and streamed, with microphones required for audio capture. A substantial portion of the meeting covered the division’s workload and schedule. Landrian outlined the agencies assigned to Division Two, including Safety, Fish and Game, Transportation, Education, the Lottery Commission, Police Standards and Training, the University System, and the Community College System. He explained the different fund types the division will handle, especially Education Trust Fund, Highway Fund, and Fish and Game Fund, and reviewed reference materials distributed to members, including agency budget requests, prior recommendation tracking sheets, and surplus statements. He emphasized that the agency budget requests and related handouts are available online and useful for members to review before budget work begins. Members discussed the compressed timeline for the session, with a target date of March 26 for completing Division Two recommendations. Landrian said only a few bills had been referred to Finance so far, none yet to Division Two, but that more bills and amendments were expected, including many amendments to House Bill 2. He noted that the committee would need to move efficiently and frontload meetings. Representative Papich added that Fish and Game may require closer scrutiny than in prior years because of its push for direct general fund appropriations, and members also discussed the importance of getting preliminary budget documents before the governor’s budget is finalized. No votes were taken and no formal actions were reported beyond the procedural overview and distribution of materials.

Transcript Highlights:

• You're right though: on the non-state program, you know, there's a 25% match requirement.
• Just real quick, is there an expenditure requirement when these entities receive the funds?”
• It would require legislation to do that. But, you know, to me, it's a grant program.
• , and it had an expenditure requirement.
• “The statutes do not require it, and then, therefore, we haven't required it.”

Committee: House Ways & Means

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That balance the budget with a certain reserve requirement, a certain reserve target based on the revenue
• And so that difference, that remainder, is something of a surplus.
• It's a constitutional requirement for the state to pass a balanced budget every year, and so this is
• The state of New Mexico is going to have an abundance of surplus because we are saving in reserves and
• How do we push that out and spread this surplus out over time?

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• It requires a high skill set. Those people are old and aging out. They all look like us.
• Value is at $88 million, so they actually have a surplus of $36.8 million.
• That's when the chief certifies who meets those requirements.
• It's to us once you meet all the requirements on Slide 6, Madam Chair, and you get to.
• On slide 5, there are minimum requirements in order to get on the list. Is this an average?

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition to the leave above, this does not include any additional training that may be required outside
• of their basic obligatory requirement of 1 week in a month or 2 weeks a year.
• In practice, in practice, this will allow the corporation to meet the program's affordability requirements
• , in their in their interim report, House Bill 2426 instructs member agencies to study the use of surplus
• if there are excess or surplus lands available at any level of government as the author described, and

Bills: HCR7

Committee: House S/C on Defense & Veterans' Affairs

Keywords: memorial, tribute, military service, community contribution, Texas legislature

Transcript Highlights:

• So, these readiness requirements, a set aside, extending the timeline, um, will be incredibly helpful
• So, these readiness requirements, a set aside, extending the timeline, um, will be incredibly helpful
• So, these readiness requirements,<00:04:10.080><c> a</c><00:04:10.120><c> set</c><00:04:10.320><c> aside
• ,</c><00:04:11.040><c> extending</c><00:04:11.360><c> the</c> requirements, a set aside, extending the
• </c> surplus at the end of the year. surplus at the end of the year.

Bills: HF3548

Committee: House Agriculture Finance and Policy

Keywords: farm assistance, down payment, agriculture, state funding, loan modification, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you know what the surplus is? Do you know what the surplus is? Good morning.
• DPR is doing the internal work to meet the requirements in AB 2113.
• DPR is doing the internal work to meet the requirements in AB 2113, such as the registration requirements
• are ongoing annual requirements.
• The requirements I have already mentioned, and several others in AB 2113, are ongoing annual requirements

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations on the administration’s Proposition 4 spending plans for extreme heat mitigation and outdoor access, then took up SB 54 implementation, SB 707 textile producer responsibility, and recovery needs related to the Los Angeles fires at state parks. For the extreme heat chapter, agencies described funding for the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program, urban greening, urban forestry, fairground upgrades, and technical assistance for community-based climate programs. Witnesses emphasized that these are existing programs with strong demand, that technical assistance is important for reaching disadvantaged and tribal communities, and that the proposed funding would expand outreach and implementation capacity. Members asked for more detail on where funds have gone geographically, examples of successful projects, tree-planting totals, and how fairgrounds could better support fire staging and emergency preparedness. The LAO said the timing of the administration’s proposed funding generally made sense because the programs are already established, and no votes were taken. For outdoor access, State Parks, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources described funding for new parks in underserved communities, deferred maintenance, state lands access, and several new or pending programs. State Parks said the park development program would fund roughly 48 projects and that deferred maintenance funding would address high-priority health, safety, and access needs. Fish and Wildlife said its lands program would improve visitor amenities and access on properties that often lack basic facilities. The Natural Resources Agency also outlined three newer outdoor-access proposals: expanding recreation in disadvantaged communities, enhancing natural resource values and trail access, and a nature/climate/education facilities grant program. The LAO distinguished between existing programs, which are ready to move forward, and the newer proposals, where the Legislature may want more input before funds are allocated. Members also raised concerns about park police vacancies, the need to track outcomes for accessibility investments, and whether Prop. 4 could help with wildfire-related recovery at state parks. CalRecycle then presented on SB 54, the plastics and packaging producer responsibility law, and members pressed hard on the delay in regulations. CalRecycle said it has held workshops, formed an advisory committee, selected the producer responsibility organization, and completed required baseline and covered-material reports, but needs more time to address complex comments and novel features such as source reduction and eco-modulated fees. Members expressed frustration that a statutory deadline was missed and asked for a concrete timeline; CalRecycle said it expects regulations in place by 2026, ahead of the PRO’s January 1, 2027 plan deadline. Finance said the Beverage Container Recycling Fund is currently healthy enough to support short-term loans for implementation. The committee also reviewed SB 707, the textile EPR law, which would create the nation’s first textile producer responsibility program; staff said the proposal would add positions and loan authority, and members noted the statutory deadlines for PRO approval, needs assessment, and later regulations. The hearing ended with discussion of the January Los Angeles fires’ damage to Topanga State Park and Will Rogers State Historic Park, where State Parks described extensive losses, emergency response work, and ongoing damage assessment. Members asked about FEMA eligibility, state funding sources, and community engagement in rebuilding, and the department said it is still assessing costs and will work with the public on reimagining the parks.

Transcript Highlights:

• It directs surplus funds from the Alabama 21st Century Fund toward energy infrastructure and economic
• Any amount above those payments must be transferred to SIDA. the use of these surplus funds.
• The bill transfers accumulated surplus funds from the 21st Century Fund in the following amount: $50
• It provides for an excise or privilege tax as well for the mixed spirit beverages and contains requirements

Bills: SB311 , SB322 , SB304 , SB313 , SB315 , SB316 , HB489 , SB90

Committees: House Tourism , House Economic Development and Tourism

Keywords: electric transmission, public highways, permit processing, economic growth, infrastructure, rural development, condemnation actions, state regulations, community development district, CDD, annexation, municipal annexation, wet municipality, dry county, wet county, Sunday alcohol sales, ABC Board, alcohol licensing, on-premises consumption, golf course