Transcript Highlights:

• Screening process.
• Income should not matter as to the selection process.
• was needed, and this bill creates a standardized process.
• Is there a certain process? Madam Speaker and gentlemen, yes.
• This is a really tenuous process to be able to get a voucher.

Transcript Highlights:

• But basically the same process anyway.
• But basically the same process anyway.
• What does end process mean?
• What does end process mean?
• It will no longer have to be a manual process, but it will be an automatic process.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee first heard the January 2026 follow-up to the special audit of the Arizona State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The auditor’s contractor reported that the board had implemented or was in the process of implementing most of the 28 recommendations from the 2024 audit, but three remained unimplemented: resolving complaints within 180 days and two open meeting law recommendations. The follow-up also identified new concerns about outdated or incomplete public disciplinary records and the lack of a complete public records request log and response procedures. Committee members pressed the board on open meeting compliance, complaint delays, transparency, and lobbying activities, while the executive director said the board had adopted new policies, added staff and investigators, created an intake committee, improved complaint prioritization, and was transitioning to a new licensing platform. She also said the board had ended broad subpoenas, improved conflict-of-interest tracking, and was working to formalize its practices in rule. The committee did not take a vote or other formal action in the transcript provided. The committee then received the Arizona school district financial risk analysis for January 2026. The Auditor General’s office reported that the number of highest-risk districts increased from two to nine, and districts approaching the highest-risk category increased from seven to nine. The presentation explained the financial risk measures used, common risk patterns among the highest-risk districts, and the district action plans posted on the report website. Tucson Unified School District was used as an example of a highest-risk district, and Scottsdale Unified as an approaching-highest-risk district. Members asked about declining enrollment, reserve balances, negative fund balances, and the use of capital monies for operations. Sierra Vista Unified School District then presented its response to being identified as financially at risk. The superintendent said she had recently taken over and was implementing a turnaround plan that included a school closure, staffing reductions through attrition, spending freezes, tighter purchase controls, a three-year sustainable spending plan, and efforts to stabilize enrollment through outreach, customer-service changes, and alternative program offerings. She also said the district was redirecting some capital assistance to operations, renegotiating contracts, and improving communication with families and staff. Committee members questioned the district about declining enrollment, instructional spending, school safety, academic performance, and whether the action plan adequately addressed those issues. No formal vote or action was taken on the school district item in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And whereas the 18th voting process.
• If there is a recommendation process or Senate confirmation, that process has to be followed for the
• c><00:37:35.520> process.
• And a lot the general regular process.
• They just through the RFP process.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Duran said throughout the process is that at times this process felt that it was moving too quickly,
• What's your standard IPP process, which is also a new process that all regional centers are utilizing
• What's that process look like?
• I track the master plan process closely. I think it was a great process in many ways.
• So how long was your intake process?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Nothing else would change about the process, the process for appeals, process for variance... ...nothing
• else would change about the process, the process for appeals, process for variance, or any other provisions
• Nothing else would change about the process, the process for appeals, process for variance. nothing else
• would change about the process, the process for appeals, process for variance, or any other provisions
• But that's a process for that, right?

Summary: The House Labor and Industrial Relations Committee met on May 7, 2026, and first deferred several measures, including House Bill 460, Senate Bill 322, Senate Bill 32, Senate Bill 22, and House Bill 561. The committee then took up House Bill 819 by Chairman Cruz, which would replace Louisiana’s current workers’ compensation medical treatment schedule with the Official Disability Guidelines (ODG) by MCG as the primary guideline, while keeping the existing variance and appeal process. Cruz and MCG representative Troy Prevo argued that ODG is more comprehensive, updated more frequently, and used in many states, and said it could reduce delays, disability duration, and costs. Dr. Jason Picard, the state medical director, testified that Louisiana already uses ODG as a secondary reference in many cases because the state schedule lacks coverage for some body parts and treatments, and said the bill would not otherwise change the appeals process or care delivery. Committee members focused heavily on whether the bill would delay care or improve it. Several members questioned the private-company nature of ODG, the $400 annual subscription cost, and whether Louisiana doctors would be forced to rely on an out-of-state guideline. Rep. Glorioso and others raised concerns about preauthorization delays and proposed amendments to create tacit approval when treatment follows the schedule, require payment within 30 days, and make the carrier prove by clear and convincing evidence that care was not medically necessary to challenge it. Chairman Cruz said he was willing to work with those ideas, and the committee also discussed adding an on-ramp or legacy language so current patients would not be disrupted. Opposition testimony came from injured-worker advocates and representatives of medical and labor groups, including Joseph Jola St. and Robin Krumholt. They argued that Louisiana’s current guidelines are already working, that rates have fallen over time, and that the real problem is delay in approval rather than the content of the schedule. They said ODG is overly rigid, cost-driven, and can lead to denials that shift costs to workers, Medicaid, or private health insurance. They urged the committee to keep Louisiana’s existing system and instead adopt tacit approval under current law. The bill was still under discussion at the close of the transcript, with amendments being read and no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank everybody who’s been part of this process.
• I want to make sure that that process is respected.
• , and that's why I want to thank the process.
• CEQA is all about public process. This process provides environmental justice communities a voice.
• The process is absolutely wrong here.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But we have seen, even with kind of our pre-application process, we typically have a two-step process
• So process matters, process matters, process matters. I think that's the takeaway here.
• So process matters, process matters, process matters. I think that's the takeaway here.
• And how does that process work?
• So I think the process you described is kind of more of a speculative process from certain developers

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• due<00:14:44.280> process,<00:14:45.080> having due process, but due process, having
• process here. process here.
• > process.
• can't request that process. can't request that process.
• in the process. in the process.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill establishes an appeal process for unhired candidates who believe the process was not appropriately
• I did not go through the confirmation process. I only went through the appointment process.
• This is not something that can be addressed solely through process improvements.
• Chair, Representative, this is adding several additional processes to the state hiring process.
• . ...hiring in an appeals process.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee heard and acted on a series of Senate bills and one concurrent resolution, with most measures receiving due-pass recommendations. SB 1078 would require de novo judicial review in public records disputes; supporters from the sponsor and Goldwater Institute argued it would restore transparency and prevent deference to agency denials, and it passed 4-3. SB 1184 would bar HOAs from prohibiting display of military division flags; it drew support as a veterans’ issue and passed unanimously. SB 1586 would require Arizona agencies to post federal guidance they create, adopt, or receive; supporters said it would improve transparency, while one member argued existing websites already provide this information, and it passed 4-3. The committee then considered SB 1665, which would standardize state agency hiring with weighted grades, interview panel grades, an overall grade, and an appeal process for unsuccessful applicants. The sponsor and the Arizona State Personnel Board argued it would create merit-based hiring and a needed check on ADOA, while ADOA warned it would add bureaucracy, cost more than $3 million, and slow hiring; the bill passed 4-3. SCR 1024 would change legislative residency requirements from county-based to district-based and add a one-year district residency requirement for party nomination as well, sending the proposal to voters; after extended discussion about district/county complications and ballot-measure concerns, it passed 6-1. Later, SB 1135 would raise the workers’ compensation burial expense for fallen first responders from $5,000 to $10,000, with emotional testimony from surviving spouses and first responders; it passed 6-1. SB 1136 would allow surviving spouses of first responders to keep death benefits after remarriage, and survivors testified that benefits should not be conditioned on remaining unmarried; it passed 5-2. SB 1435 would make it a class 6 felony for school and public library employees or contractors to refer minors to sexually explicit material, and supporters framed it as protecting children from explicit content while opponents warned it could chill library access and criminalize librarians; it passed 4-3. SB 1567 would extend similar restrictions to state and local agencies and public facilities, including limits on exposing minors to sexually explicit materials and using public property for filming explicit acts; the sponsor said it was another child-protection measure, and it passed 4-3. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• They do have a process. They do have a process. Not been auditing whether they actually do it.
• They do have a process that's like a couple years later.
• pay process, in order to make that a viable alternative to a protracted litigation process?
• The report speaks for itself and was the product of a very robust process.
• Can you explain or clarify the audit process for us? Sure. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and broader options for reforming California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the scale of wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh trade-offs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described long delays in compensation, housing insecurity, and what they viewed as a system that protects utility shareholders more than victims. They urged greater transparency, clearer accountability for utility spending and safety performance, faster and fuller compensation for survivors, and reforms such as independent audits and better alignment of utility incentives with wildfire prevention and restitution. The second panel began with Tom Welsh of the California Earthquake Authority, who explained that the SB 254 report was intended as a broad inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations. He described the report’s process, including stakeholder submissions, workstreams, and a convergence process, and outlined the current wildfire fund structure: utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims after a covered wildfire, and the CPUC later determines prudency and possible reimbursement back to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon summarized compensation data, saying utilities paid about $38 billion between 2017 and 2024, with major shares going to injured parties, insurers, and public entities, while litigation costs and survivors’ own losses remain substantial. He noted that legal fees and delays reduce the amount survivors ultimately receive. Utility and public-interest witnesses offered differing views on the report’s pathways. PG&E’s Tyson Smith said the report shows inaction is the worst outcome and argued for community wildfire risk reduction, equitable allocation of catastrophe costs, and state-led resilience tools. LADWP’s Fernando Valero emphasized the vulnerability of municipal utilities and cities, and supported inverse condemnation reform, a state-sponsored liability insurance framework, damages and subrogation limits, and stronger insurance access. Consumer Attorneys of California’s John Fisk argued that IOU-caused fires are not natural disasters but the result of negligence and sometimes criminal conduct, and opposed reducing utility liability while supporting stronger oversight and audits. The Public Advocates Office’s Nathaniel Skinner focused on affordability, saying ratepayers already bear large and growing wildfire costs and warning against shifting more costs onto bills without measurable risk reduction and tighter accountability. Committee members then began questioning witnesses about what counts as measurable mitigation, how to define full and fair compensation, and how any fast-pay process should work.

Transcript Highlights:

• As a region, we've done, or we're going through the process.
• It says state review process and regulations.
• And talking with them, they have their processes, their internal processes.
• So the legislature, in the process we end, and it is...
• Now let's talk about the state review processes.

Summary: The meeting began with introductions from members of the Joint Transportation Committee and a presentation from the Association of Washington Cities and the public works directors of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and West Richland. The cities described the Quad Cities region as one of the fastest-growing in the state and outlined shared transportation priorities that align with the committee’s focus on safety, multimodal access, climate resilience, and economic development. They emphasized Vision Zero efforts, complete streets, ADA accessibility, regional trail and bike/pedestrian planning, and coordinated long-range transportation and land-use planning to manage growth. The city officials also discussed major funding and delivery challenges, including rising construction costs, project phasing, pavement preservation, right-of-way acquisition, and delays caused by state and federal permitting and review processes. They highlighted regional cooperation through the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Good Roads, and local funding tools such as impact fees, transportation benefit districts, REET, tax increment financing, and state and federal grants. Specific projects discussed included Richland’s SR 240/Aaron Drive complete streets project and downtown connectivity work, Kennewick’s Columbia Center Boulevard improvements and rail study, Pasco’s Court/Road 68, Sylvester Street corridor, I-182 bridge/interchange work, and a new north-south bridge study, and West Richland’s SR 224 Red Mountain corridor project, which officials said was awarded under budget and is scheduled to begin construction. Committee members asked questions about sidewalk connections to schools, state-agency right-of-way timelines, apprenticeship utilization, contractor selection, and whether complete streets requirements add burdens to pavement preservation projects. The city officials said new development is generally meeting sidewalk standards, but older infill areas remain a gap; that state right-of-way transactions can take much longer than expected; that apprenticeship requirements are common but harder for smaller contractors and local labor markets; and that low-bid contracting leaves little room to screen for performance history. They also said complete streets requirements are usually manageable on major projects but can be difficult to absorb in smaller preservation work. The committee then shifted to a JTC-funded study on transit-oriented development, presented by Urban Institute researcher Yona Freemark. The study examined TOD conditions in 33 cities in Snohomish, King, Pierce, Clark, and Spokane counties near rail and bus rapid transit stations. Freemark said Washington’s housing affordability crisis is severe, especially near transit, and found that high-cost cities have seen more development near stations but also signs of gentrification and loss of affordable housing, while lower-cost cities have had less development and worsening affordability relative to income. He identified barriers including high debt costs, land costs, infrastructure costs, zoning and parking rules, and limited subsidies for affordable housing. He recommended more neighborhood infrastructure funding near stations, stronger affordable housing investment, and better use of public land, noting that HB 1491 and related legislation are already changing some local requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• process the meat into jerky.
• <02:37:02.680> that<02:37:02.920> is process needs to be a process that is process
• So there is a process.
• So there is a process.
• So there is a process.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a work session on HB 505, which would allow the sale of freeze-dried foods produced in homestead food operations. Members raised concerns about the bill’s broad language, especially the provision stating freeze-dried food would not be considered potentially hazardous. Several suggested narrowing the bill to specific products such as processed foods, berries, fruit, dairy products, ice cream, or vegetables, and requiring use of commercial freeze-drying equipment rather than dehydrators. There was also discussion of oxygen absorbers, moisture control, sanitation, and whether the issue should be handled in statute or rules. By the end of the discussion, members generally agreed the topic should be treated in a separate section of law rather than folded into the existing homestead food license, and the chair said the matter would be sent to the food safety subcommittee, with the possibility of a study committee if more time was needed. The committee then moved to HB 277, a technical correction to the animal cruelty statutes. Representative Bixby explained that current law refers to a “colt,” which applies only to male baby horses, leaving fillies unaddressed; the bill would replace “colt” with “foal” and make related wording changes so the restriction applies to any horse under 90 days old not being nursed by its dam. The New Hampshire Farm Bureau testified in support, saying the change was requested to clarify and modernize the statute and that the issue had been identified during work on related animal cruelty legislation. No votes were taken in the portion provided. The chair recessed the work session until 11:00 a.m. and announced that Representative Ktoa would take over the hearing on HB 277.

Transcript Highlights:

• The truth in taxation process requires.
• Several of the study processes overlap.
• What, if any, is your role in that process?
• So it's a nerve-wracking process for us.
• It has been two distinct separate processes, the appraisal process to determine the proper size of. of

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But I would contend that there still should be a process in place; there should be due process in our
• But I would contend that there still should be a process in place; there should be due process in our
• But I would contend that there still should be a process in place; there should be due process in our
• But I would contend that there still should be a process in place; there should be due process in our
• <01:29:21.320> and or maybe it just says due process and or maybe it just says due process

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, the process really does matter.
• It was very well done about procurement processes.
• That's dictating process.
• process that includes one public notice and the opportunity and a public participation process that
• environment would be helpful to that process.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So thank you for the process. I think it was needed a long time ago, and not just today.
• When funding sources require separate processes, When funding sources require separate processes with
• What if we saved a year on that process?
• And that is the closing process that people referred to over and over again.
• But, um, you know, I now know the processes. I go to these things and I also learn a process.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on the Governor’s 2025 reorganization plan to split the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into two new agencies: a Business and Consumer Services Agency and a California Housing and Homelessness Agency. Administration officials said the change would give each side more focused leadership, improve consumer protection and regulatory oversight, and better align housing and homelessness policy with the state’s broader housing goals. Leaders from the Department of Consumer Affairs, Cannabis Control, Alcoholic Beverage Control, and Financial Protection and Innovation all voiced support for the business-side reorganization, while housing officials emphasized that the new housing agency would help streamline funding, compliance, and coordination across programs. Members raised concerns about timing, budget impacts, office space, and whether the split would actually reduce bureaucracy. The administration said the plan would be included in the May Revision, was intended to be cost-neutral, and would not require fee increases for licensees or additional office space. On the housing side, officials said the new Housing Development and Finance Committee would work toward a single application and more coordinated award process for affordable housing funding, while preserving CalHFA’s statutory and financial independence. They also said the reorganization would improve compliance monitoring, data collection, and coordination with local governments, including Los Angeles homelessness programs. Public testimony was largely supportive. Industry groups representing beverage distributors, craft brewers, wine, mortgage lenders, and housing organizations backed the business-side split, and housing advocates such as Housing California, the California Housing Partnership, and the California Housing Consortium supported the housing agency concept and the proposed one-stop-shop approach. Several witnesses urged that tax credits, bonds, and other funding sources be better coordinated, and some said the plan should be paired with additional state investment and implementation resources. No formal vote was taken; the hearing was informational.

Transcript Highlights:

• It outlines the process, some of the procedures.
• So it's a really lopsided process.
• And the process is... But the process is... But the process is... It's three lines.
• Any time after this process, once that offer-counteroffer process starts, and if we end up in the condemnation
• It's not a rulemaking process.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 5695, which would create the Sayers Ranch Municipal Utility District in Bastrop County between Elgin and Bastrop. Representative Gurdis said Bastrop County commissioners unanimously supported the district. There was no public testimony, the bill was left pending, and later reported favorably to the full House on an 8-0 vote. The main debate centered on Senate Bill 291, which would require condemning entities to pay landowner attorney’s fees if they fail to provide 10 years of appraisal reports with an initial offer in an eminent domain case. Supporters, including Rita Beving and Charles Maley, argued the bill would add an enforcement mechanism and better protect landowners in a process they described as intimidating and lopsided. Opponents, including Tom Zabel and Lisa Kaufman, said current law already provides a remedy through abatement and attorney’s fees under Section 21.047 of the Property Code, and warned the bill could create inconsistency, delay public infrastructure projects, and increase costs. The bill was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 5699, a simple MUD boundary change in Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 405 that would allow a tract to leave one district and join another. Representative Schofield said the landowner and district agreed to the change and to pay the tract’s share of debt. The committee substitute was adopted and the bill was reported favorably on an 8-0 vote. Later, the committee considered House Bill 5489, which would impose a four-year moratorium on impact fees. Representative Dyson framed it as an “active study” to test whether impact fees raise housing costs. College Station officials and other opponents argued impact fees help fund infrastructure for growth and that local governments should retain control; supporters said the fees are regressive and add to housing prices. The bill was left pending. The committee then heard Senate Bill 292, which would update the Landowner Bill of Rights to add information on surveys, require separate offers for property not sought in condemnation, and require the rights document to be delivered with the initial offer. Supporters said it would improve transparency and fill gaps in the current document, while opponents said it was unnecessary because the law already exists and warned against revisiting a 2021 compromise. The transcript ends during that discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• What's the vetting process to apply to get grants for a city?
• , milk process value-added milk processing facility incentive program, and this is similar to what we've
• , milk process value-added milk processing facility incentive program, and this is similar to what we've
• And along with dairy processing plants, they also had to have a milk processing plant.
• In the state of North Dakota, along with dairy processing plants, they also had to have a milk processing

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to work on three remaining policy bills. On HB 2225, members discussed an amendment reducing the Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund housing grant program from $50 million to $30 million, lowering the maximum grant amount, and clarifying that existing lots can qualify after a certificate of occupancy is issued so the program can help communities like Watford City and Williston use prepared lots. Members also discussed the matching requirements, tribal eligibility, and how Commerce would score applications to ensure the money lowers lot costs rather than being absorbed by political subdivisions. The amendment and the bill as amended both passed 22-0, and Representative Murphy was assigned to carry the bill. The committee then took up SB 2200, which funds the 988 crisis hotline. After discussion, members agreed to strip out the proposed phone-line charge approach and instead provide a $500,000 appropriation from the Community Health Care Trust Fund, consistent with the Senate version, to supplement existing funding for increased staffing and texting-related demand. The amendment and the bill as amended both passed 22-0, and Representative Nelson will carry the bill. Finally, the committee considered SB 2342, which creates a value-added milk processing facility incentive program. The amendment reduced the proposed line of credit from $10 million to $5 million, with the program intended to support dairy-related processing infrastructure such as utilities, roads, water, wastewater, and rail access. Members noted the program would be administered through the Agriculture Diversification and Development Committee, could potentially support one or multiple facilities, and sunsets June 30, 2027. The amendment and the bill as amended both passed 22-0, and Representative Brandenburg will carry the bill. The committee then adjourned, planning to reconvene the next morning to take up additional bills and budget adjustments.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're still in the planning process and the permitting process.
• It's just our process is kind of out of order.
• I was not in junior high when this process started.
• So my concern is that we try to rush this through the budget process when we already have another process
• no public involvement or no public process.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:38.879> was improvements to our election process was improvements to our election process
• It provides that process.
• that process. It authorizes the board of that process.
• <00:04:57.360> as process for individuals identified as process for individuals identified
• We know that lawmaking is a process, and we respect that process and continue to be a partner in it.

Keywords: HB 534 (only one on the agenda) – 00:02:08, 958, all

Summary: The House Elections, Constitutional Amendments, and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee met to consider House Bill 534, sponsored by Rep. DJ Johnson, with a committee substitute. Johnson said the bill was the product of interim work with the Secretary of State’s office, the State Board of Elections, county clerks, KREF, and other stakeholders, and that the committee substitute folded in several election-administration changes. He highlighted provisions clarifying the timeline for felony voter-roll removals, allowing the Board of Elections to work with federal agencies to identify non-citizens on the voter rolls, creating a process for those individuals to prove citizenship and vote provisionally, and changing some KREF board appointments. He also described technical campaign-finance changes and said some provisions might still be adjusted through floor amendments. Members raised concerns about fiscal impact, timing, and voter privacy. Rep. Bivens questioned the cost and whether the bill could affect voter records; Johnson responded that the bill itself did not require new equipment or broad new spending, though a special election in a local government failure scenario could create costs. Rep. Hancock and Rep. Marzian argued the bill could create unnecessary burdens on county clerks and questioned whether there was a demonstrated problem to justify the changes. The county clerks’ association, through Rockcastle County Clerk Danetta Ford Allen, opposed the bill as introduced, warning that citizenship checks could wrongly remove eligible voters, that online ballot images or cast vote records could threaten voter privacy and facilitate vote buying, and that the emergency clause would force major changes too close to the May primary. Johnson defended the bill as a targeted response to a real local election failure and said the citizenship data sharing would be limited to name, date of birth, and Social Security number. He also explained that the ballot-image language was permissive and intended to let counties explore emerging technology, but he was open to removing that section or changing the effective date in a floor amendment. He further said he would consider preserving gubernatorial appointments to KREF with Senate oversight instead of shifting appointments to legislative leaders. After discussion, the committee voted 9-2 with one pass to report the bill out, with several members explaining yes votes as support for moving the bill forward while expecting further cleanup, and no votes citing cost, timing, and voter-access concerns.