Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, Senator Sorvaag, future project funding estimate: that would be a combination of federal funding
• The funding sources for this project have involved federal monies, state monies, local monies.
• As for future projections, what do we project for next biennium?
• , as far as what projects... ...projects as far as what projects should we truly be funding on high or
• But at the federal level, we are required to give top priority to projects that address the most serious

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to review several interim studies and receive updates from the Department of Water Resources. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and welcomed Representative Hansen to the committee. Staff then reported that the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study had both satisfied the presentation requirements in their study directives, with no further required testimony unless members wanted additional information. The department’s main presentation focused on major water projects and agency operations. Reese Haas and staff updated members on the NAWS project, the Southwest Pipeline Project, Devils Lake outlet operations, low-head dam safety work, floodplain management repository implementation, data center water use, and the 2027 Water Development Plan. Members asked detailed questions about NAWS funding sources, remaining project costs, capacity concerns for All Seasons and other users, and whether current construction is being designed for future demand. The department said NAWS remains on track for substantial completion by October, that remaining NAWS funding will come from a mix of federal, state, and local sources, and that current construction is designed for ultimate capacity while some future components will be adjusted for increased demand. A large portion of the meeting was devoted to the department’s cash management, Resources Trust Fund revenues, carryover balances, and the State Water Commission’s cost-share program. The department reported $340.6 million in carryover remaining, explained that much of it is already obligated to long-term projects, and noted that oil price forecasts and stripper-well exemptions will affect future revenues. Members raised concerns about large carryovers, affordability for local sponsors, and whether the state should continue obligating money multiple bienniums ahead. The department said it is working with the commission on a revised prioritization framework, including high/moderate/low project categories and a two-tier pre-construction/construction approach, to better manage obligations and affordability. The committee also reviewed Deloitte’s finalized studies on regional governance/finance and cost-share policy. Deloitte presented options for Southwest, NAWS, and Red River governance, with stakeholders generally favoring keeping NAWS largely as is, using the current Southwest model with improvements, and pursuing a more structured governance option for Red River. On cost share, the department said Deloitte’s recommended package would cover projected needs through the 2030s, but would require policy changes such as lower percentages for some project types, a 25% replacement-project rate with a cap, and possible bonding or delayed reimbursement strategies. No votes were taken on these policy questions, and the chair indicated the committee would continue the discussion at future basin meetings and the September Water Topics meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't, you know, project that, but we rely on the projections that Moody's Analytics has for that.
• One of the projects is a two-year project, and the other one we anticipate to take three years to build
• The application we put in for that project was a 50% state match, 50% federal match.
• And then federal grants revenue.
• I do project that many of these districts that did qualify will continue to qualify into I do project

Committee: Joint Budget Section

Transcript Highlights:

• Under the new federal rule, we are expecting forthcoming federal guidance, which may help the administration
• Specifically, $262.2 million is projected to go unspent in CAP, and $468.7 million is projected to go
• The extended contract is projected.
• The extended contract is projected to total $148.2 million, including $16 million from federal resources
• The extended contract is projected to total $148.2 million, including $16 million from federal resources

Summary: The committee first heard May Revision child care and human services items. The Department of Child Support Services described two technical adjustments, which the analyst supported. The Department of Social Services then walked through child care proposals, including a reduction in federal and Proposition 64 funding absorbed through a shift from General Child Care to the Alternative Payment program, a 2.01% child care COLA, disaster-related infrastructure grants, a new administrative support cost structure for Alternative Payment agencies, the removal of prospective pay funding after a federal rule change, a reappropriation for existing infrastructure grants, and estimates of unspent child care funds. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended asking for more justification for shifting reductions to CAP, supported the COLA reduction but wanted consistency across programs, recommended removing prospective pay funding, opposed the administrative cost shift, and suggested further review of disaster grant alignment. Members pressed the administration on why more slots would be cut for the same savings, why the COLA was reduced, and whether the administrative percentage would grow over time. The administration said the changes were intended to avoid disrupting currently enrolled families, reflect point-in-time relinquishments and unspent funds, and stabilize contractor operations. Public commenters, including providers, advocates, and county representatives, urged full COLA funding, rejection of child care slot reductions, preservation of prospective pay, and continued investment in child care infrastructure and access. The subcommittee then recessed before moving to health items. In Part B, the Department of State Hospitals presented its May Revision proposals, including a central utility plant replacement project at Metropolitan State Hospital, funding for a continuum electronic health record system, reduced county bed billing authority to reflect phase-in of additional LPS beds, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscription services, reversion of prior-year unspent operating funds, and a workforce development proposal to use Behavioral Health Services Act funds instead of General Fund for training programs. The department said the EHR would modernize records and improve continuity of care, and that the contract exemption would prevent delays in essential clinical information services. No votes were taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The status of those projects. The cost of those projects is on the spreadsheets.
• That has been a challenge because some of these projects are matched up with federal funds.
• So, we, on a normal federal Projects. We will make half the local match of the airport sponsor.
• We also have three projects, one-time projects we've talked.
• Our airside projects that are currently ongoing include seven pavement projects and one electrical project

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, Senator Sorvaag, future project funding estimate: that would be a combination of federal funding
• The funding sources for this project have involved federal monies, state monies, local monies.
• So that's a federal commitment; we use those federal dollars for it.
• As for future projections, what do we project for next biennium?
• But at the federal level, we are required to give top priority to projects that address the most serious

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to receive interim status updates on several water-related studies and Department of Water Resources projects. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and then heard updates on the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study. Staff reported that the committee had already received the testimony contemplated in the study plans, including input from state agencies, local governments, and out-of-state entities, and that any further action would be at the committee’s discretion. The Department of Water Resources then provided project and budget updates on NAWS and the Southwest Pipeline Project. Reese reported NAWS is expected to serve about 81,000 users, with a total projected cost of about $571 million and about $96 million remaining, while the Southwest Pipeline Project is estimated at $1.06 billion total with about $409 million remaining. Members asked about funding sources, capacity needs, and whether current and future construction is being designed for increased demand; department staff said current work is designed for ultimate capacity, but some future components may need redesign based on new requests. The committee also discussed local cost shares, Minot’s role in NAWS funding, and whether the system is adequate for peak demand. A major portion of the meeting focused on the department’s cash management, carryover, and long-term water funding outlook. The department said Resources Trust Fund revenues are tied to oil extraction taxes and are affected by stripper well exemptions and future oil price declines. Members expressed concern about large carryover balances and whether the state is obligating more money than can realistically be spent in a biennium. The department reported about $340.6 million in remaining carryover and said it is trying to reduce that through a two-tier pre-construction/construction process and closer project vetting. The department also summarized the Deloitte studies on regional governance and finance and on cost-share policy. Stakeholders generally favored keeping the current governance structures for NAWS and Southwest with improvements, while Red River stakeholders leaned toward a different option; the department said it will bring an implementation plan back in September. On cost share, Deloitte’s recommendations would reduce some percentages, prioritize projects differently, and use other measures to close a projected long-term funding gap. Members debated affordability, local burden, deferred maintenance, and whether statutory changes may be needed to allow the commission more flexibility in prioritizing and funding projects. No formal votes or final actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving the updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• There will be some adjustments made to federal authority for various programs to reflect updated federal
• mechanisms and project protections.
• funding for major capital projects?
• It shouldn't have to just be project by project in the trailer bills.
• And that... from projects, and I can understand the concerns of the mayor of San Jose that their projects

Summary: The Senate Budget Committee heard two bills: AB 107, a budget bill junior making largely technical changes to the 2023, 2024, and 2025 Budget Acts, and AB 117, a trailer bill authorizing a regional transit loan package for Bay Area agencies. Department of Finance staff said AB 107 contains no new state money or new policy items, but makes adjustments such as extending encumbrance periods, updating federal authority, moving $20 million in tourism promotion funding from Visit California to GoBiz, and adding an APA exemption for certain climate bond program guidelines. AB 117 would allow CalSTA to loan up to $590 million from unallocated Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program funds to MTC, which would then lend to BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit; the loans would run 12 years with two years interest-only, and the state said the structure is intended to be cost-neutral and protected by repayment safeguards. Committee discussion focused heavily on transparency, oversight, and whether the transit loan could jeopardize future projects or become a de facto bailout if a Bay Area sales tax measure fails. Several senators questioned the need for the APA exemption in AB 107, arguing that emergency or existing public processes might provide better oversight, while supporters said the exemption was needed to get voter-approved climate bond funds out the door and that the language had already been agreed to in the budget process. On AB 117, senators raised concerns about declining ridership, fare evasion, safety, post-pandemic travel patterns, repayment sources, and the impact on other TIRCP projects such as BART Phase 2. Finance staff and transit representatives responded that ridership changes were driven by COVID-era shifts, labor and safety issues, and changing commute patterns, and that the loan would be secured against existing state transit assistance streams rather than general fund dollars. Public comment was largely supportive of both bills. Water, natural resources, and environmental groups backed the APA exemption in AB 107, saying it would speed implementation of Proposition 4 funding for water recycling, wildfire, coastal resilience, and related projects. Transit agencies and labor groups supported AB 117, saying the loan is needed to stabilize operations and preserve service while local revenue measures and efficiency efforts are pursued; San Francisco, Caltrain, BART, and AC Transit all testified in favor, though San Jose asked for stronger protections for previously approved TIRCP-funded projects. The committee first passed AB 107 and AB 117 on 8-4 and 9-4 votes, placed them on call, then later lifted the calls and both bills ultimately passed with 11 votes each and were sent out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is the only federal funding source that can serve as federal match for other federal programs.
• This project was not a good fit for REPI funding.
• It is the only federal funding source that can serve as federal match for other federal programs.
• This project was not a good fit for Repi funding.
• This project was not successful.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs heard presentations on several military- and veterans-related topics. Dr. Dan Calvert briefed the committee on the JBLM Sentinel Landscape Partnership, explaining that it works through voluntary, non-regulatory cooperation with landowners to reduce encroachment around the base by conserving prairie habitat, supporting agriculture, and limiting incompatible development. He described REPI funding, recent and pending conservation projects, and possible policy supports such as state designation, a dedicated funding stream, management endowments, prescribed fire flexibility, and water-rights transfer tools. Members asked about seed sourcing, the distinction between natural-resource encroachment and development-related encroachment, and the impact of federal REPI staffing cuts. Washington Department of Veterans Affairs Director David Puente and Deputy Director Solomon Gilbert updated the committee on a proposed state veterans cemetery in the Tri-Cities area and the Spokane Veterans Home replacement project. For the cemetery, they said the VA has identified a need within a 75-mile radius, the agency has two candidate parcels in Richland/West Richland, and a state-funded pre-design study is underway; they also noted future operating costs will likely require general fund support because the Armed Forces license plate fund is limited. On the Spokane home, they described plans for a 120-bed, small-house-model facility on a 42-acre site near the VA medical center, with improved privacy, outdoor space, memory care potential, and better staffing retention. They also reviewed budget reductions affecting outreach, counseling, and veteran service organizations, and answered questions about wellness services, adult day health care, and cemetery operations. Blue Star Families Puget Sound Executive Director Megan Barnes described the chapter’s family-support programs, including Coffee Connects, a children’s book club, outdoor cohorts, resume workshops, and Blue Star Welcome Week events. She said the organization is focused on belonging and connection for military families and is using its online network and local outposts to expand beyond the South Sound. Members raised concerns about food insecurity among military families, and Barnes said the group is seeing increased need and is distributing grocery gift cards and coordinating with food banks and partner nonprofits. In the closing discussion, members previewed possible legislation for the upcoming session, including a bill to restore the Washington National Guard retention strategy, a proposal to expand military family eligibility for E-CAP early learning, a bill to update the Veterans Affairs Advisory Committee composition, and a concept to allow transitioning service members to access veterans’ preference in hiring before receiving a DD-214. Senator Conway also asked for a formal report on state and federal cuts affecting veterans services, and the committee adjourned after thanking staff and presenters.

Transcript Highlights:

• are, these are projects that they're not one-and-done projects.
• are, these are projects that, they're not one and done projects. these projects are, these are projects
• We also have another 95 projects under review by FEMA for $577 million in federal funds.
• then turn to state-funded projects until the end of the... ...and try to maximize the federal funds,
• We've also leveraged our understanding of the overall EHP process to advise federally funded projects

Summary: The joint Senate hearing focused on California wildfire resilience funding, the SB 254 report on natural catastrophe resilience, and how the state should better prioritize community hardening, recovery, and financing. Senators emphasized that catastrophic wildfires have driven major property losses, insurance cancellations, and affordability problems, and several members argued that prevention and home/community hardening should receive far more attention than they have to date. Members also raised concerns about CEQA and other permitting delays, the need for ongoing rather than one-time funding, and whether the state should rely more on the General Fund, utilities, or other sources such as polluter-pays approaches. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state has appropriated about $4.7 billion for wildfire resilience since 2018-19, with most funding going to forest health, fuels reduction, and related landscape work, while only about $65 million has been specifically targeted to community hardening. LAO also noted that future one-time funding is likely to decline, that GGRF revenues may be limited under the new cap-and-invest structure, and that maintenance costs for treated areas could be substantial over time. Senators pressed LAO on why wildfire resilience is not more often funded through the General Fund and on whether current spending matches the scale of the risk. Cal Fire’s State Fire Marshal described the state’s community wildfire preparedness strategy, centered on home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, and said the SB 254 report aligns with Cal Fire’s direction. He said California has roughly 4 million homes in the wildland-urban interface, most built before modern wildfire-resistant standards, and highlighted recent streamlining that approved 383 fuels-reduction projects in under 30 days during an emergency proclamation. Cal OES described the AB 38 pilot and FEMA hazard mitigation work, saying federal approval delays have been a major barrier and that the state has hardened 155 properties so far through the pilot, with many more in process. The Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force said the state has coordinated more than $6 billion in state and federal investments, treated over 700,000 acres annually, and is shifting toward more regional, data-driven planning and block grants. Task force staff and Cal Fire both said they are moving beyond simple acreage metrics toward models that estimate avoided loss and community risk reduction, but acknowledged major data gaps on parcel-level home hardening and defensible space. No formal votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with members discussing possible future legislation and budget changes, including home inspection reforms and continued CEQA streamlining.

Transcript Highlights:

• Most of these projects are green energy projects.
• They're projects that have secured permits. They are projects with sites that are identified.
• , We still do have project proponents located in the state who want to build these projects and provide
• My project, I have my partners, Calamco.
• You know, as the federal government stepped back in helping projects like this, I'm looking for states

Summary: The Senate Select Committee on Hydrogen Energy held an informational hearing on California’s hydrogen leadership, with the chair framing hydrogen as a complementary clean-energy pathway for hard-to-electrify sectors such as heavy-duty trucking, transit, rail, ports, industrial uses, and backup power. The first panel of private-sector witnesses from the California Hydrogen Business Council, Bosch, Hyundai, and Sierra Northern Railway described existing deployments in California, including hydrogen buses, trucks, fueling infrastructure, and the nation’s first hydrogen fuel cell switcher locomotive. They emphasized that the technology is commercially ready but scaling is constrained by permitting delays, high fuel and equipment costs, infrastructure gaps, and uncertainty around federal support and incentives. Witnesses urged stable state policy, targeted investment, and concentrated deployment in high-impact corridors such as ports and freight hubs. Committee members also asked about labor standards, community engagement, and the current size of the hydrogen vehicle fleet in California and abroad. The second panel focused on air quality, climate, safety, and public health. Testimony from CAPCOA, the Coalition for Clean Air, the California State Building and Construction Trades Council, and a UC Berkeley researcher argued that hydrogen fuel cells can reduce diesel-related pollution and health harms when used in the right applications, especially in ports, rail yards, warehouse corridors, transit depots, and backup power for facilities like data centers. Witnesses cautioned that hydrogen should be used selectively, produced as cleanly as possible, and paired with early community engagement, safety planning, and environmental justice protections. The researcher cited projected reductions in NOx, particulate exposure, premature deaths, and health costs under broader hydrogen adoption. Committee members discussed workforce training, apprenticeship programs, and how to balance near-term costs with long-term infrastructure value. The final panel provided public-sector updates from SamTrans, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, the Port of Long Beach, and First Public Hydrogen Authority. SamTrans described its transition to a large hydrogen bus fleet and said the loss of expected ARCHES funding created a major infrastructure gap; it asked the state to protect transit funding, restore a sales tax exemption for zero-emission buses, and address axle-weight rules. GoBiz said the state should focus on creating demand, reducing costs, and streamlining permitting, while acknowledging the disruption caused by the federal cancellation of ARCHES funding. The Port of Long Beach reported hydrogen truck deployments, port incentives, and a planned public fueling station, but said high costs, fuel shortages, and uncertainty have slowed momentum. First Public Hydrogen Authority described efforts to aggregate municipal demand and support new green hydrogen production projects, stressing the need for long-term market signals and financing. Committee members repeatedly emphasized the need for state support, infrastructure investment, and a diversified fuel strategy to keep hydrogen deployment moving forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Response and project Response and project management<00:51:38.559><c> um</c><00:51:38.760><c> I<
• federal dollars.
• federal dollars.
• federal dollars.
• federal dollars.

Transcript Highlights:

• project.
• </c> something projects? something projects? &gt;&gt; 474<00:49:45.120><c> projects.
• </c> federal fund deposits. federal fund deposits.
• projects.
• federal grant funds and congressional earmarks to scale up those projects, but, yeah, we would love to

Transcript Highlights:

• government in terms of federal reimbursements and a couple of federal block grants that flow through
• government in terms of federal reimbursements, a couple of federal block grants to flow through the
• state budget. about In terms of federal reimbursements, a couple of federal block grants flow through
• I think we need to watch what happens with federal tax reform and the federal appropriations bills.
• you know, you mentioned all the projects that we were very, very successful in addressing with federal

Committee: House House Committee on Federal Funding, Policy and Accountability

Summary: The inaugural hearing of the newly named House Committee on Federal Funding, Policy and Accountability focused on how federal policy changes could affect Massachusetts, especially in education, health care, research, infrastructure, climate, and business conditions. Chair LaNatra said the committee was created to monitor federal funding decisions and their impacts on state programs and services. Members introduced themselves, then heard testimony from Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Sarah Mills of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, and Quentin Palfrey, the governor’s Director of Federal Funds and Infrastructure. Howgate argued that the Trump administration and new Congress pose ideological, practical, and process-related risks to Massachusetts, citing proposed cuts to Medicaid, education, research, and other domestic programs. He said federal dollars make up about a quarter of the state operating budget and capital plan, warned against using one-time reserves to backfill ongoing federal cuts, and urged the state to prioritize core services while protecting areas where Massachusetts is especially strong, such as higher education and research. In response to committee questions, he said the House Medicaid proposal would still cost Massachusetts hundreds of millions and that international student and NIH-related changes could harm the state’s labor force and innovation economy. He also advised that the state communicate clearly without overreacting to daily federal developments. Mills testified that AIM members are most concerned about uncertainty, tariffs, Medicaid cuts, and NIH reductions. She said tariffs are raising costs, disrupting supply chains, and hurting small and medium-sized businesses, housing construction, and exporters, with AIM’s business confidence index falling to its lowest level since the pandemic. She said Medicaid cuts would raise employer health costs, reduce productivity, and strain the health care system, while NIH cuts would threaten Massachusetts’ life sciences and academic research ecosystem. In questions, she said AIM has increased federal outreach, is coordinating with the U.S. Chamber and the Massachusetts delegation, and is hearing concerns from employers about immigration compliance and workforce disruptions. Palfrey described the Healey-Driscoll administration’s efforts to maximize federal funding, including a biweekly interagency council, a municipal partnership effort, and a statewide roadshow. He said Massachusetts has secured nearly $9 billion from major federal laws for projects such as the Cape Cod bridges, Allston Multimodal, grid modernization, clean-energy school buses, and broadband. He also said the administration launched a public website to track federal impacts and is working with municipalities, nonprofits, and the Attorney General on grant changes, legal issues, and litigation. In response to questions, he warned that cuts to NOAA, NSF, Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs could affect services and the state budget, and said the administration is tracking changes to federal grant applications and conditions. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our mines get to this federal coal and Our mines get to this federal coal and they can't mine it.
• And then also the federal government trying to say, you know, there's a federal powers act.
• holder of that project.
• project.
• This would not include a project such as the JetX project.

Committee: Joint Energy Development and Transmission Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• A few weeks later, he did come and looked at the project, and our hopes for a federal grant went way
• up since he was so much in favor of this project and helping us to get that federal grant.
• </c> project to move forward without tolls. project to move forward without tolls.
• </c> project and our hopes for a federal project and our hopes for a federal grant<00:24:23.200><c> uh
• </c> a lot of support from the federal a lot of support from the federal delegation,<00:25:54.320><c>

Summary: The Kentucky Senate convened with an invocation, pledge, and roll call establishing a quorum of 37 members. The chamber approved the journal from Monday, January 12, 2026, and then moved through routine business including recessing briefly for the Rules Committee and Committee on Committees. The Committee on Committees reported referrals of Senate Bill 7, Senate Joint Resolution 11, and Senate Joint Resolution 27 to Transportation, and Senate Resolutions 25, 28, 29, 30, and 31 to the Senate floor. Several new bills and resolutions were introduced, including measures on identity documents, youth vaping prevention, local occupational license fees and taxes, healthcare provider credentialing, constitutional amendments on voting and restoration of rights, substance use disorder medication regulations, forcible entry and detainer, coroner response times, special needs trusts, immigration enforcement collaboration, and a resolution recognizing Physician Anesthesiologist Week. The Senate also adopted Senate Citation 001 honoring Shelby County Sheriff Mark Moore as the Kentucky Sheriffs’ Association’s 2025 Sheriff of the Year, and adopted Senate Resolution 14 honoring David Delvin Drake. A major floor discussion centered on Senate Resolution 10, which honored the victims of the UPS Flight 2976 crash and commended first responders. Senator Herron described the crash, named the victims, and thanked emergency responders and government partners; the resolution was adopted unanimously, followed by a moment of silence. Another extended discussion came from the Senator from Marion regarding the I-69 bridge project, explaining the bipartisan effort behind the project, the push for a federal grant, and the state’s tolling requirements if no grant is secured. The Senate also heard announcements about committee meetings, upcoming receptions, and a film release, and several members requested co-sponsorships on various bills before the chamber adjourned until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, January 14, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a project that's so beautiful—a project that half of it will honor our first responders and our
• We have $55 million in the bank on one project, $50 million in another project that's compatible, the
• CalVet does not need to wait for federal funding to move this project forward.
• And what is unique about this project is it is a bipartisan project, and it is rare in politics to not
• We, the Governor, supports this project. We support this project.

Summary: The hearing focused on the long-delayed Southern California Veterans Cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, with members of the Assembly, Senate, City of Anaheim, Orange County, CalVet, DGS, and veterans organizations discussing next steps. Chair Sharon Quirk-Silva reviewed the project’s history, including the earlier Irvine effort, the 2021 Anaheim support resolution, county and state funding commitments, and the recent federal determination that the site meets criteria for a state veterans cemetery. Speakers repeatedly emphasized the need for a local burial site for Orange County’s large veteran population and the burden on families who currently must travel to Riverside, San Diego, or Los Angeles. The first panel featured veterans advocates and Gold Star family members who strongly urged immediate action. The American Legion, Gold Star Mothers, and the Veterans Alliance of Orange County said the cemetery is overdue and stressed that older veterans and grieving families should not have to wait longer. Several speakers described personal losses and the hardship of long travel to existing cemeteries, while also calling for CalVet and state leaders to move faster and communicate more directly with veterans groups. Assembly and Senate members responded with support, noting the bipartisan nature of the effort and the importance of honoring veterans and their families. The second panel, with Orange County officials, described the county’s support and the unique shared-use arrangement with the Orange County Cemetery District. Supervisor Don Wagner said the county has dedicated land and $20 million, and county and district staff explained that the public cemetery and state veterans cemetery can share roads, utilities, grading, and other infrastructure to reduce costs. They said the county is ready to transfer property to CalVet when appropriate and that collaboration could save tens of millions of dollars. The third panel from DGS and CalVet explained that a 2023 feasibility study estimated the state’s portion at about $126 million under earlier assumptions, but that a revised concept plan is now being developed to lower costs and update the timeline. CalVet said it remains committed to the project, while legislators pressed for clearer answers on what is needed to begin construction and how budget action in the coming year could help. No formal vote was taken; the hearing ended with public comments, many of which echoed the call to begin construction immediately and criticized the pace of state action.

Transcript Highlights:

• sign that we're at a heightened level of risk for the project.
• Those programs were 100% federally funded.
• The fraudulent payments were made by the federal program.
• In accordance with federal law and regulation.
• During the same time, the EDD Next project, which is the duration of this project, the total expenditure

Transcript Highlights:

• We have two IT projects and one facilities project.
• Services, are both projects that we work with our federal partners, and we get federal funding, large
• This project is a 10-year project. We're at year five.
• One project was the um Conent projects.
• <c> project.

Committee: Senate Capital Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• We were counting on that federal money coming in to complete that critical flood control project, and
• Again, we're not seeing any of our projects come out of it.
• We were counting on that federal money coming in to complete that critical flood control project, and
• And again, we're not seeing any of our projects come out of it.
• That's a lot of discussion about that at the federal Level.

Summary: The committee held a work session focused on the effects of tariffs on Washington’s economy, agriculture, and small businesses, followed by updates on emergency management, cybersecurity, disaster resilience, tsunami preparedness, and World Cup security planning. Office of Financial Management economist Abdelamintrawe Trieri said tariff increases are expected to raise prices, reduce output and employment, and lower state revenue over a four-year horizon, with the hardest-hit sectors including aerospace, food and beverage manufacturing, and agriculture. Members asked about updated tariff scenarios, crop-specific impacts, inflation versus deflation in different goods, and whether some manufacturing sectors could benefit; staff said updated numbers would need to be rerun as tariff rates changed. Washington Department of Agriculture representative Ryan Hamm described how tariffs raise costs for farm inputs such as equipment, parts, packaging, and fertilizer, while also affecting exports of key commodities like wheat, potatoes, apples, cherries, dairy, and wine. He said some sectors support tariffs on competing imports, but retaliation and market restrictions have hurt exports, especially to China and, in the wine sector, Canada. Department of Commerce representative Andrea Chartock outlined export assistance, business finance, recruitment, and industry-sector development programs, and proposed expanding tariff-resilience support through market diversification, supply-chain optimization, and efforts to attract investment and federal funding. She also noted uncertainty around delayed federal STEP funding for small business export assistance. Emergency Management Division Director Robert Ezell warned that federal disaster and mitigation funding is becoming less reliable, citing the denied bomb cyclone disaster declaration, delays in FEMA grant processing, and possible restructuring of FEMA that could shift more responsibility to states. He said Washington may need stronger state-funded public assistance, individual assistance, and mitigation programs, along with broader coordination among state agencies and local governments. Cybersecurity staff described state efforts to support local governments through the Cybersecurity Advisory Committee, threat intelligence sharing, vulnerability assessments, and a proposed volunteer incident response team, while noting the loss of MS-ISAC funding and the importance of continued state matching funds for cybersecurity grants. Hazard mitigation and tsunami staff emphasized the need for sustained investment in flood, wildfire, earthquake, lahar, and tsunami resilience, including vertical evacuation structures and language-access outreach. Ezell also briefed the committee on World Cup security preparations and federal grants for counter-unmanned aircraft systems, explaining that the state can buy mitigation capabilities but current authority to use them remains largely federal; the committee asked follow-up questions about fan zones, training, and the meaning of drone mitigation. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with adjournment after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, the climate at the federal level continues to impact federal funding to our institutions, including
• However, the climate at the federal level continues to impact federal funding to our institutions, including
• research and administration dollars, and federal federal funding, and federal institutions, to our institutions
• At Dominguez Hills, the project is helping support both a new project and an adjacent project that will
• Three of these projects are already completed and housing students, and an additional five projects will

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education held its first 2026 hearing on higher education, focusing on UC and CSU system updates, student housing, enrollment, and core operations. In opening remarks, the chair noted recent state fiscal stress, the prior rejection of proposed UC/CSU cuts, and the Governor’s proposed 5% ongoing compact increases. UC President James B. Milliken and CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia described the systems’ public value, research and workforce roles, and the impact of federal actions on grants, financial aid, and campus operations. Both also emphasized Title IX and civil rights efforts; CSU said it had implemented nearly all state auditor recommendations and was on track to finish the remaining one, while UC highlighted its systemwide civil rights and Title IX offices. Both leaders said federal investigations, grant cancellations, and litigation demands were consuming staff time and money, with UC reporting more than 200 grants lost or affected and CSU citing more than $161 million in lost grants and more than 1,600 grants affected overall. The committee then heard on student housing. Finance and LAO staff said the Governor’s budget made no major new housing proposal but continued support for the Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program. CSU reported 12 supported projects that will add about 5,047 beds, most below market rate, with four already open and seven more expected this year; it also said it has about 68,000 beds systemwide, a 92% occupancy rate, and ongoing emergency housing support. UC said the program has supported seven UC projects and two joint community college projects, adding more than 7,000 beds total, but nearly 10,000 UC students were on housing waitlists at the start of fall 2025. UC asked for additional state support, including possible bond funding and a statutory change to allow UC participation in public-private partnership housing projects. Members discussed rapid rehousing, student homelessness, faculty and staff housing, and community college housing partnerships, with both systems describing existing emergency beds and support services. On enrollment, LAO recommended maintaining UC’s 2026-27 resident undergraduate target, funding enrollment growth separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident reduction plan, and holding UC flat in 2027-28. For CSU, LAO recommended revising the 2026-27 target downward to reflect current projections, funding growth separately, and holding 2027-28 flat. CSU said it had rebounded from COVID declines, now exceeds its funded target by about 3,000 FTE, and is shifting about $89 million and 10,000 FTE spots from lower-demand campuses to higher-demand ones while developing turnaround plans for seven campuses with sustained enrollment declines, including Sonoma State. CSU also described direct admissions, transfer success pathways, and new degree programs aimed at workforce needs. UC said it had surpassed its compact enrollment goals, planned to add 2,721 California undergraduates in 2026-27, and was seeking $5.5 million for health professional programs. Members raised concerns about underprepared freshmen, K-12 alignment, nonresident caps at UC San Diego, deferred maintenance, ROTC access, and the need for stronger turnaround plans and teacher preparation pipelines. The final item on core operations addressed the Governor’s proposal to defer 3% base funding again, moving the one-time deferral to 2027-28 and allowing short-term zero-interest loans to cover it.

Transcript Highlights:

• from the OHA projection.
• plans at the federal level.
• We don’t have any federal oversight. We don’t have any federal framework.
• or federal counterparts?
• a lot of projects.

Committee: House A&B Health Subcommittee