Transcript Highlights:

• So the resolution caps it at $1,500. That is something. And operate. Correct.
• So the resolution caps it at $1,500.
• See, I have bought a place over here in Baton Rouge, so, but I do have fees that I have to pay, HOA fees
• But it's particularly the internet fees, because that's the only reason I have the internet is that I
• It's particularly the internet fees, because that's the only reason I have the internet is that I can

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The committee met briefly, established a quorum, and adopted the June 3, 2024 minutes without objection. The clerk and executive counsel then gave an overview of the committee’s role in setting and administering the House supplemental expense allowance, explaining that members currently receive up to $1,500 per month for reimbursable office and district expenses such as rent, utilities, printing, postage, travel in district, and certain communications costs. They also explained the existing carryover rules: unused funds may roll forward up to $3,000 generally and an additional $6,000 for printed materials, with any excess remaining in the House budget. Members asked for clarification on how the supplemental interacts with district office rent, mailers, per diem, out-of-state travel, cell phones, internet, and conference expenses, and staff explained which items are currently reimbursable and which are paid directly by the House. Several members raised the idea of expanding allowable uses of the supplemental to help cover lodging costs during session for members who live more than 50 miles from the Capitol, and one member also asked whether the monthly allowance should be increased because of inflation and rising office costs. Staff said lodging would require an amendment to the resolution and that any increase in the allowance would have to be taken up by the next legislative body, not this committee mid-term. Members also discussed possible tax implications and the need to consult a CPA before changing the rules, with concerns raised about avoiding double-dipping or ethical issues if lodging were reimbursed in addition to per diem. One member withdrew the lodging motion and asked that the committee study the issue further. The committee took no substantive action beyond adopting the minutes and adjourned after a motion to adjourn was made and approved without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the resolution caps it at $1,500. That is something... And operate. Correct.
• So the resolution caps it at $1,500.
• that I have to pay, HOA fees.
• But it's particularly the internet fees, because that's the only reason I have the internet is that I
• It's particularly the internet fees, because that's the only reason I have the internet is that I can

Summary: The committee met briefly, called the roll, confirmed a quorum, and adopted the June 3, 2024 minutes without objection. Staff then reviewed the purpose of the House supplemental allowance resolution, explaining that members receive up to $1,500 per month for reimbursable office and district expenses such as rent, utilities, printing, postage, travel within the district, and related office costs. Members also discussed the existing carryover rules, including a $3,000 general carryover and an additional $6,000 for printed materials, with unspent amounts reverting to the House budget. Several members asked for clarification about what expenses are currently covered and how reimbursements work, including district office rent, phone and internet bills, per diem, out-of-state travel, conference registration, cell phones, and portable hotspots. The clerk and executive counsel explained that some items are paid from the supplemental account, while others, such as certain conference registration fees or appointed travel per diem, are paid directly by the House operating account. Members also raised concerns about whether using supplemental funds for lodging during session would require a resolution amendment and whether it could create tax or ethics issues, including possible double-dipping with per diem. A motion was made to consider allowing excess supplemental funds to be used for lodging costs for members who live more than 50 miles from the Capitol, but after discussion the motion was withdrawn so the committee could study the issue further and consult a CPA. Members also discussed whether the monthly supplemental amount should be increased in light of inflation and rising office rents, noting that any change would have to be made by the executive committee for the next term. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn, which was adopted without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• what I would ask is this: Is there anywhere in the budget right now that pays for the civil attorney fees
• revenue-generating proposals before us today, and I have particular concern regarding the permanent cap
• We urge inclusion of cap-and-invest to protect climate funding, the Student Loan Empowerment Network
• and are in strong support of the software as a service tax that expands our sales tax base, also the cap
• here on behalf of California Life Sciences, here to express our opposition to any proposed permanent cap

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the 2026 Budget Act, which leaders described as the compromise budget expected to move to the floor later that evening. Opening remarks emphasized that the plan balances the budget over two years, reduces the structural deficit, and builds reserves, while also protecting core programs from federal cuts. Jason Sisney outlined the legislative budget plan, saying it uses higher-than-expected revenues and reserve balances to reject some proposed reductions and fund temporary restorations and new spending in areas such as education, child care, health care, housing, homelessness, and public safety. Department of Finance representatives said the administration appreciated the two-year balanced framework and the effort to address out-year deficits, while noting the plan includes additional spending and revenue changes. Sisney also previewed floor bills including AB 109, SB 110, SB 122, and SB 125, with SB 122 described as a modification to the tax credit proposal and SB 125 as the managed care organization tax proposal. Subcommittee chairs then described the major policy choices in their areas. Health chair Addis said the budget responds to federal health care rollbacks by protecting Medi-Cal, clinics, hospitals, dental care, and other safety-net services, while also supporting reproductive care, gender-affirming care, and county health systems. Education chair Alvarez highlighted increased school funding, expanded learning, special education, teacher support, community colleges, and a change to Cal Grant eligibility for older community college students. Other chairs emphasized child care expansions, homelessness and housing funding, prison closure and criminal justice savings, wildfire mitigation, county support for Medi-Cal and CalFresh administration, and accountability measures tied to homelessness and corrections spending. Several members also raised concerns or priorities, including the impact of the MCO tax on providers, the need for more support for local journalism, transit and climate funding, biotech and R&D incentives, and continued work on Prop 98 and long-term revenue solutions. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided, but members broadly expressed support for the budget framework and the need to continue negotiations with the administration before final passage. The committee discussion repeatedly framed the budget as a response to federal policy changes and a choice to protect vulnerable Californians while maintaining fiscal responsibility. The vice chair, citing LAO warnings about future volatility and limited reserves, pressed Finance on whether the budget represented a record-sized state budget and whether revenues were also at record levels, underscoring concerns about the state’s preparedness for a downturn.

Transcript Highlights:

• I was drowning in attorney fees, and I had not saved properly from I lost opportunities.
• I was drowning in attorney fees, and I had not saved properly for taxes.
• There's no caps. There's no regulation in our space right now.
• They have to pay a $100 filing fee. They have to do a criminal background check.
• They have to pay $100 filing fee. They have to do a criminal background check.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on name, image, and likeness (NIL) financial literacy programs and how NIL is affecting student athletes in California. The chair opened by noting California’s early leadership on NIL and the need to ensure athletes have the education and support to manage contracts, taxes, budgeting, and other financial decisions. Witnesses across the panels generally agreed that NIL has created new opportunities but also significant risks, especially for young athletes who may lack experience, legal advice, or consistent institutional support. Tyree Dillingham and Brandon Copeland described widespread financial vulnerability among student athletes, including confusion about pay, taxes, credit, and contract terms, and warned about predatory deals, cash advances, and conflicts of interest. They argued for standardized, mandatory financial literacy and stronger protections, including a players association model and limits on predatory practices. Mikey Williams and attorney Anthony Coronae gave a personal account of a NIL-related advance they said functioned like a payday loan, with terms they said were not fully understood and that left Williams owing money while his name and image were used to raise additional funds. They urged legal review, clearer rules, and guardrails to prevent similar exploitation. Adam Shore, athletic director at the University of the Pacific, and San Diego State representatives Brendan Hill and Sloan Benchoff offered an institutional perspective. Shore said college sports are in a chaotic transition, with transfer rules, revenue sharing, and NIL creating pressure on schools, but he also described existing support structures and suggested California consider adapting sports-agent registration rules and pursuing a national solution. Hill and Benchoff highlighted San Diego State’s mandatory multi-year life skills program, which includes financial literacy, internships, and career preparation, and said that model should be standardized statewide. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and focused on testimony, questions, and policy ideas.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because right now, there are mostly landline customers that are paying a huge fee.
• That's another thing that's on their bill, right, because that's a USF-mandated fee.
• Yes, I then paid that access line fee as a voice over internet protocol user as a mobile user.
• fees.
• They've been getting ...has 15% of all the access line fees.

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee held an informational hearing on the state of broadband affordability in California. Chair Tasha Berner said the committee was examining how broadband prices, access, and affordability are affecting households, especially after the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program and amid concerns about federal resistance to state broadband regulation. She noted the committee’s continued interest in policy options for 2026 and referenced prior legislation, including AB 353, that would have required affordable home internet as a condition of doing business in California. Industry witnesses from U.S. Telecom and CTIA argued that broadband and wireless prices have generally fallen in real terms even as inflation and other household costs have risen, citing competition, infrastructure investment, and faster speeds as the main drivers. They said California’s higher costs are tied to permitting delays, taxes, copper theft, and legacy obligations such as COLR requirements, and they urged the Legislature to preserve market incentives, reduce fees and regulatory burdens, and support infrastructure deployment. They also discussed fixed wireless access, federal BEAD funding, and Universal Service Fund reform, arguing that more entities benefiting from networks, including tech platforms, should contribute to support programs. Consumer and public-interest witnesses presented a different view, saying California still has a serious affordability and adoption problem, especially for low-income households. Sunny McPhee of the California Emerging Technology Fund said broadband adoption has improved dramatically over time, but about 500,000 households remain offline or underconnected and many low-income households still pay above the FCC affordability benchmark. Ernesto Falcon of the CPUC Public Advocates Office said California’s market is losing its competitive edge, with prices higher than in other states and meaningful price pressure coming mainly from fiber competition at the gigabit tier. He said roughly 4.8 million Californians are limited to one gigabit option and estimated that more competition could save consumers more than $1 billion annually. Both witnesses emphasized the need for stronger transparency, targeted subsidies, and a permanent affordability solution, including extending and refining the CPUC broadband Lifeline pilot and advancing SB 716. Public commenters, including representatives from cable providers, nonprofits, and digital equity organizations, largely supported SB 716 and a permanent broadband affordability program. Several urged the committee to remove a cap on the Lifeline program, expand the CPUC pilot, and invest in digital navigators, outreach, and enrollment assistance. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, after the chair thanked the witnesses and public commenters for their testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• In Miami-Dade, there's a lake belt management fee. There's mobile home licensing fees.
• We are going to fee the citizens of Florida to death.
• They don't have the ability to have fees.
• They don't have the ability to have fees.
• I filed a bill that would have capped insulin at $35 a month.

Summary: The House took up the special order calendar for a proposed constitutional amendment on property taxes, CS/HJR 1F, which would create a new homestead exemption for non-school taxes, lower the annual assessment cap on non-homestead property, and restrict how counties and municipalities may use ad valorem tax revenue. The sponsor, Rep. Overdorf, said the measure would give homeowners tax relief and argued local governments could adjust spending or use other revenue sources. Opponents repeatedly questioned the ballot language, the lack of a fiscal estimate or backfill, and the potential impact on local services, public safety, and debt obligations. The House adopted the special order report and then debated the resolution and a series of amendments. Several amendments were offered to carve out or protect specific services from the tax changes. Rep. Bartleman’s amendment to protect Children’s Services Councils and Children’s Trusts was supported by members who said those entities fund early learning, mental health, aftercare, and other services for children and working families, but it failed 25-74. Rep. Cross offered an amendment to include water management districts in allowable ad valorem uses, warning of impacts on flood control, water quality, Everglades restoration, and water supply; that amendment also failed. Rep. Eskamani offered an amendment requiring the Legislature to backfill public safety funding if local revenues fall, arguing police and fire services, staffing, and response times would be at risk; it failed 25-71. The chamber then rejected Rep. Woodson’s amendment to require state backfill for senior services, with supporters citing Meals on Wheels, transportation, adult day care, and other local senior programs, and opponents saying the proposal was outside the bill’s scope. Finally, Rep. Gant offered an amendment to protect veteran services, saying local governments fund housing, mental health, transition, and family support programs for veterans; debate emphasized the importance of honoring veterans and avoiding cuts to those services. The transcript cuts off during debate on that amendment, before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are the mineral fees, the fees that get paid?
• And then during session, I believe the request was to increase their fees.
• So children must attend at least 40 hours per month in order to receive a C-CAP payment.
• So it's a cap. HB 1176, which I know we're all familiar with, required caps of 3%.
• But also the 3% cap, I just want to remember that's on budgets. It's not on tax... ...the 3% cap.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• being absorbed by the utilities, and there's really no fee to be attached.
• The price cap on how much can be charged? Thank you. How would that work?
• We are the line as opposed to the utility being the fee line.
• And it doesn't have a cancellation fee.
• I also want to say we never charge early termination fees.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several energy-related bills, with the main focus on H. 3534/S. 2255, which would ban or sharply restrict residential third-party electric suppliers, and on related reform proposals. Supporters included the Attorney General’s office, municipal and regional planning officials, environmental justice groups, consumer advocates, and city officials from Boston and Chelsea. They argued that the residential competitive supply market has produced higher bills, deceptive sales tactics, auto-renewals into higher rates, and disproportionate harm to low-income residents, seniors, communities of color, and people with limited English. Witnesses cited AG reports estimating hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges over time, described door-to-door and storefront marketing abuses, and said municipal aggregation programs have saved residents money while offering more stable rates. Several supporters said the Legislature should either ban residential competitive supply or adopt strong guardrails such as ending automatic renewals, banning incentive-based commissions, and capping rates relative to basic service. Opponents or industry representatives from the Retail Energy Advancement League, Vistra, and Constellation argued that the market can provide savings, longer-term price stability, and value-added products such as renewable options and time-of-use offerings. They said Massachusetts has already improved consumer protections through DPU proceedings, that complaints are relatively few compared with the size of the market, and that a ban would eliminate consumer choice. They also defended direct sales and commissions as normal features of a retail market, while saying they would support additional protections, licensing, bonding, and stronger oversight of bad actors. Committee members pressed both sides on whether the market truly saves money, whether automatic renewals should be banned, and whether the AG’s proposed reforms would be enough. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3972, a bill to extend utility shutoff protections during extreme heat, with Rep. Mindy Domb arguing that Massachusetts should treat extreme heat like extreme cold and protect customers facing financial hardship. Rep. Barrett also testified for H. 3450, a municipal broadband/right-of-way bill, arguing that communities need easier and cheaper access to utility poles and public rights of way to build municipal broadband. In addition, Senate Majority Leader Creem testified for S. 2239, which would bar utilities from recovering ratepayer funds for lobbying, promotions, trade association dues, and similar expenses. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do we look at cutting FTEs, assessing fees? Do we look at cutting FTEs, assessing fees?
• Did we increase any of the fees that you charge? Can you refresh my memory?
• Did we increase any of the fees that you charge? Mr.
• Chairman, and you, I don't remember that we bumped any fees up this last go-around.
• For example, there is a quality earmark on C-CAP.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee first approved the December 10 minutes and then received a DEQ base budget summary and agency overview. DEQ staff explained that the agency is largely federally and special funded, with major ongoing costs in salaries, operating expenses, grants, and continuing appropriations. Director Dave Glatt and accounting director Beth Jacobson highlighted core programs, the move to a new chemistry laboratory, the new state fuel inspection program, wastewater-related funding from HB 1577, and implementation of SB 2267 for on-site wastewater rules. They also noted the agency’s spending patterns, possible federal EPA cuts, and the likelihood of some fee adjustments or program changes if federal support declines. Members asked about DEQ’s travel, field offices, future staffing, and how the agency would respond to reduced federal regulation. DEQ said most staff are based in Bismarck, with field offices in Fargo, Sawyer, and Gwinner, and that travel is driven by inspections and spill response. Glatt said the agency would continue to rely on science and law, and that any future federal retrenchment could mean more state responsibility but likely not a wholesale increase in FTEs. The committee also discussed a feedlot enforcement case in the Minot area, with DEQ explaining its role in ensuring compliance, permitting, and animal-waste management standards. The Department of Health and Human Services then presented on FTE block grant reporting, TANF balances, child care transfers, and the Rural Health Transformation Program. Donna Ockland explained that no line-item transfers had occurred yet for the new rural health work, but about 33 positions were planned and some current staff time could be reimbursed through approved cost allocation. HHS also reviewed TANF’s frozen eligibility and block grant structure, the transfer of up to 30% of TANF funds to child care, and recent program changes that increased benefits and raised the income limit. Staff said the department is using TANF more strategically to support child care and other allowable uses, while still carrying over unused funds as many states do. Finally, Pat and HHS staff gave an update on the Rural Health Transformation Program, saying the first funding opportunity was being posted and that the state is on track to obligate the federal funds within the required timeline. They described priorities such as workforce retention, preceptor development, technical assistance for critical access hospitals, community wellness projects, and ambulance upgrades. Members asked about rural versus urban eligibility, immigrant recruitment, evaluation of year-two funding, and how the program would address varied local workforce needs. The meeting then shifted to an Office of Management and Budget update on the new State Hospital project, where Lindsay Ashley reported continued construction progress, updated cost information, and selected alternates, with photos and details showing work underway in multiple building sections.

Transcript Highlights:

• taxes and lower fees.
• taxes and lower fees.
• taxes and lower fees.
• And there's income caps.
• And there's income caps.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3524 and House File 3525 and laid both over for possible inclusion in the omnibus tax bill, with no amendments adopted and no vote taken at this stage. HF 3524 would conform Minnesota law to the federal overtime tax deduction, and HF 3525 would conform to the federal tip-income deduction. The author argued both bills would help workers keep more of their earnings, simplify tax filing, support labor-force participation, and provide relief to workers in hospitality, trades, health care, and other industries. The committee heard testimony in support from a restaurant owner, Sandra Weiss of the Finnish Beastro in St. Paul, who said the bills would help tipped workers keep more of their income and would support hospitality businesses. She described her staff as roughly half men and half women, including students and long-term employees, and said front-of-house tipped workers and back-of-house workers face different pay levels. She also said Minnesota’s tip rules and lack of a tip credit create challenges for the industry. During questioning, members discussed wage disparities, the makeup of her workforce, and the practical effects of the proposals. Opposition testimony came from Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project and Eric Bernstein of We Make Minnesota, both of whom argued the bills are regressive, poorly targeted, and costly. They said the deductions would mainly benefit higher earners, violate horizontal equity by treating similar incomes differently, and could encourage compensation restructuring. They also warned the combined cost would exceed $500 million over the 2028-29 biennium and could pressure funding for health care, education, and other public services. Mark Havenman of the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence similarly criticized the bills on tax fairness and administrative grounds, noting the federal tip deduction framework is still under development and could create enforcement issues. Nonpartisan staff provided revenue estimates showing HF 3524 would reduce general fund revenue by about $365.9 million in fiscal 2027 and HF 3525 by about $126 million in fiscal 2027, with smaller ongoing impacts in later years. Members also raised questions about how the bills would be paid for and what income would qualify under the overtime deduction.

Transcript Highlights:

• fees. supervisory fees.
• these supervisory fees. these supervisory fees.
• month fees. month fees.
• dealing with fees for copies. dealing with fees for copies.
• fees and motor license fees and permit fees and motor license fees for<02:51:34.080> unaccompanied

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, there's no cap on the damages, the punitive damages, or the attorney's fees, and, um, and the attorneys
• For the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, which somebody mentioned, the cap is an escalating cap.
• And there are caps in the New Mexico Civil Rights Act.
• And there are not caps in the federal law and we have no control over that, but there are caps in the
• Chair, Representative, the cap is an escalating cap.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because that would bring it to $3.7 million for this rule, or does it cap out after year two?
• is like you kind of million for this rule, or does it cap out after year or two?
• Rule G is the increase to the administration fee for the RSV vaccination for children.
• It increases the administration fee only to the same price as well.
• It is an increase to the administration fee.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The committee reviewed a series of Medicaid and health-related administrative rules, most of them tied to 2025 acts. Early items covered presumptive eligibility end dates, adding a definition of fictive kin for foster children, and updating ABLE account disability onset age. The committee also reviewed rules on continuous glucose monitors, RSV vaccine administration fees, ET3 telemedicine exemptions for ambulance services, dental rate increases, physical and occupational therapy access, and the Healthy Moms Healthy Babies and lactation consultant provisions. Most rules were reviewed without objection, though several members asked for fiscal and implementation details, especially on the CGM rule and the dental rate rule. The most extended discussion centered on the dental rate increase under Act 1025. DHS said the rule applies only to oral surgeons’ dental services as written, while the Arkansas State Dental Association and legislative sponsors argued the intent was to raise rates for a broader set of dentists performing the same procedures, especially for adults with special needs. Members discussed the statutory language, CMS constraints, bifurcated rates, and the estimated additional cost of about $1.5 million annually if general dentists were included. The committee ultimately reviewed the rule, but the chair noted the testimony and lawmakers indicated they would work on a fix next session. Another major exchange involved the CGM rule. Members questioned the reported $3 million two-year fiscal impact, the prior authorization process, and whether DME providers would be forced into a pharmacy-based system. DHS explained that the same vendor would handle prior authorizations and that the billing system changes were already live, but one member moved to expunge the earlier review vote and then said he would hold the rule pending further clarification. The committee also reviewed rules on adverse decisions appeals, CNA training, substance abuse and mental health network-status disclosures, new certification rules for doulas and community health workers, cosmetology/body art, massage therapy, lead-based paint, radiation control, radiologic technology licensure, and mobile home/RV park standards. The meeting ended with all remaining items reviewed and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um so then fast forward into the early 2010s, um they started pushing for higher caps.
• I think it was a very low cap on it.
• Um and that got up to the higher caps.
• And they'll let the veteran finance that fee, too, which is just discouraging to me.
• , let the veteran um, finance that fee, let the veteran um, finance that fee, too,<00:15:46.720><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 131 by Senator Pressly, professions and occupations, limiting recovery of attorney fees,
• Senate Bill 131 by Senator Pressly, professions and occupations, limiting recovery of attorney fees,
• institutions, to authorize institutions to impose a just-certain tuition fee and amounts.
• Members, this puts a cap on how much the institutions can go up each year, and it sets the cap at 15
• Members, this puts a cap on how much the institutions can go up each year, and it sets the cap at 15

Bills: HR252, HR253, HR254, HR255, HR256, HCR103, HCR104, HR244, HR245, HR246, HR247, HR248, HR249, HR250, HR251, HCR101, HCR102, SCR40, SCR60, SB112, SB131, SB145, SB194, SB268, SB307, SB312, SB319, SB333, SB341, SB346, SB464, SB466, SB488, SB495, SB503, SB507, SB509, HR9, HR196, HCR27, HCR28, HCR50, HCR62, HCR67, HCR71, HCR78, HCR81, SCR20, HB123, HB251, HB625, HB662, HB709, HB769, HB775, HB783, HB895, HB1011, HB1057, HB1155, HB1186, HB1224, HB1245, HB1247, HB1253, HB1254, HB1255, HB1256, SB8, SB10, SB11, SB12, SB13, SB14, SB16, SB17, SB18, SB20, SB21, SB22, SB40, SB48, SB55, SB69, SB75, SB77, SB78, SB85, SB102, SB115, SB133, SB140, SB148, SB151, SB165, SB169, SB170, SB185, SB197, SB200, SB217, SB235, SB278, SB280, SB291, SB300, SB303, SB315, SB324, SB330, SB411, SB416, SB420, SB436, SB438, SB449, SB455, SB456, SB477, SB489, SB521, SB97, SB105, HR171, HCR49, HCR65, HCR72, HR37, HCR64, HR170, HR191, HR206, HR207, HR208, HR217, HCR11, HCR53, HCR60, HCR66, HCR68, SCR19, SCR3, SCR6, SCR18, SCR11, SCR22, SCR2, HCR6, HB64, HB68, HB92, HB130, HB258, HB633, HB801, HB61, HB98, HB102, HB139, HB142, HB170, HB185, HB194, HB199, HB231, HB247, HB294, HB336, HB474, HB661, HB842, HB852, HB66, HB153, HB165, HB326, HB387, HB455, HB513, HB603, HB660, HB719, HB762, HB766, HB802, HB816, HB833, HB940, HB950, HB975, HB1028, HB1039, HB1051, HB1053, HB1080, HB1201, HB1215, HB1228, HB1251, HB1252, SB1, SB23, SB32, SB42, SB43, SB46, SB51, SB110, SB113, SB150, SB154, SB161, SB218, SB220, SB221, SB253, SB289, SB310, SB351, SB399, SB404, SB502, SB26, SB28, SB29, SB30, SB41, SB44, SB64, SB84, SB87, SB93, SB98, SB107, SB118, SB142, SB192, SB195, SB199, SB219, SB222, SB234, SB241, SB255, SB275, SB277, SB292, SB294, SB306, SB314, SB482, HCR32, HB798, HB998, HB1084, HB1223, HB59, HB955, HB1191, HB1234, HB646, HB824, HB341, SB397, SB442, HB901, HB79, HR20, HR74, HB284, HB306, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB614, HB682, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB911, HB926, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1240, SB47, SB82, SB89, SB149, SB382

Keywords: consumer protection, credit card fees, cash transactions, rounding practices, transparency, low-income, economic impact, residential construction, building codes, inspection practices, housing costs, task force, HR254, House Resolution 254, Ty Hebert, Acadiana Legislative Delegation, Louisiana State University, LSU, graduation, commendation

Transcript Highlights:

• While we appreciate the cap on costs from what it previously was, having no cap, unfortunately, $500
• We put a cap, a different cap on, you know. I hear that either way they're going to pay.
• talk about that, and then it's some kind of cap on cost.
• And I think coming prior to this hearing that there was no cap on cost, right?
• We do not touch Anything about impact fees or exactions the city put on development.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 753, which would modernize California’s shopping cart recovery rules by allowing cities and counties to return abandoned carts directly to retailers, recover documented retrieval costs, and avoid the current impound-and-wait process. The author and supporters, including San Jose officials and the League of California Cities, said the bill would help clear streets, sidewalks, and waterways and reduce local costs. Grocers and retailers opposed the measure unless amended, arguing it would turn cart retrieval into a new cost burden and could create incentives for cities to charge too much for stolen property. After extensive discussion about notice periods, cost caps, and local ordinances, the committee adopted amendments and passed the bill 6-0 as amended. The committee then took up SB 445, which would speed up permitting and approvals needed for high-speed rail by requiring early engagement, setting rules for third-party coordination, and creating a dispute-resolution process. The author said the bill was narrowed from an earlier, broader transit proposal and was intended to reduce delays caused by utilities, local governments, and other entities. Supporters said permitting bottlenecks add major costs and delays to infrastructure projects, while opponents from utilities, cities, counties, telecoms, and special districts raised concerns about safety, reliability, affordability, and the need to review the pending amendments. The bill passed 8-1 to the Utilities and Energy Committee. The committee also heard SB 9, a narrower housing bill focused on accessory dwelling units. The author explained that it would require local ADU ordinances to be submitted to HCD for review and would make state standards control if a local agency fails to submit a compliant ordinance or respond to HCD findings. Supporters from housing and YIMBY groups said the bill would improve enforcement of state ADU law and prevent local barriers from slowing housing production. There was no opposition, and the bill passed 6-0. The committee then began hearing SB 79, which would allow more housing near major transit stops; the author and supporters framed it as a response to the housing shortage and transit underuse, and the hearing continued with extensive support testimony as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• What the bill seeks to do is any budget or spending caps. budget or spending caps.
• a town council that have adopted a cap. a town council that have adopted a cap.
• So, the budget school district budget cap and town budget cap, that's fairly new law.
• So, the budget school district budget cap and town budget cap, that's fairly new law.
• local caps. local caps.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair and members, as it moves, it removes our current cap fee of 1% that we have at a state level and
• Chair and members, as it moves, it removes our current cap fee of 1% that we have at a state level and
• So, as we go through this, I'll cap.
• No one else has that 1% cap.
• They're all uh, our fellow states cap.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It caps the number of local government fee waivers... of local government fee waivers available per year
• It adds annual revenue caps as well as total cumulative caps to the... ...as well as total cumulative
• caps to the projects to limit revenue risk.
• She took on fees for applications for rentals.
• Um, we gutted the section on excessive fees. So now that it will just reflect common law.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But those types of activities where you have to do. ongoing basis, for example, fees.
• And as we get closer to our caps, we have fewer allowances that are available overall.
• But overall, we have a declining cap. We have revenues that could decline over time.
• It is true that the cap is going down, and so there will be fewer allowances.
• program, cap-and-invest program has.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the May Revision from the Department of Finance and comments from the Legislative Analyst’s Office on the state’s overall budget condition and natural resources proposals. Finance said the May Revision keeps the budget balanced in 2026-27 and 2027-28, reduces the structural deficit, and includes major natural resources items such as Proposition 4 climate bond spending, including up to $125 million for the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, $23.2 million for wildlife refuge and wetland projects, $25 million for Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, $25 million for Bay-Delta environmental flows, $1 million for coexisting-with-wildlife work, and $2.5 million for cancer-risk research. The LAO said revenues remain strong but argued the budget still relies too heavily on reserves, recommended more savings and fewer new discretionary expenditures, and urged the Legislature to prioritize only urgent health and safety needs while planning for uncertainty in greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues. Members focused heavily on the Golden Gate Fields purchase, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, the wildlife coexistence initiative, and cap-and-invest funding for transit. On Golden Gate Fields, agency officials said the property is a time-limited, once-in-a-generation opportunity, that the state’s contribution would help secure the acquisition, and that the land would ultimately transfer to East Bay Regional Park District, which would assume operations and maintenance. Officials said the site would be remediated by the current owner, the state would use deed restrictions to prevent commercial development, and the remaining purchase price would be covered by nonstate partners. On Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, Finance and the Natural Resources Agency said the $25 million would support scientific monitoring and early implementation of the Bay-Delta plan update, while the LAO questioned the timing and said the request was premature until the Water Board formally adopts the plan. The committee also discussed the coexisting-with-wildlife proposal and wolf-livestock conflict. Finance said the May Revision’s $1 million proposal would backfill existing funds to support limited-term staffing, deterrence tools, and conflict response, while members and the California Cattlemen’s Association said the need is larger and includes direct loss compensation, indirect loss compensation, and nonlethal deterrence. The Cattlemen’s Association said private insurance is limited and often inadequate for these losses. Members also raised concerns about the greenhouse gas reduction fund and transit, warning that lower auction revenues and possible CARB rule changes could leave major transit and other tier-three priorities underfunded. The LAO recommended planning for multiple revenue scenarios and reconsidering the current cap-and-invest spending framework. No votes or formal actions were taken in the hearing.