Transcript Highlights:

• >> We need it.
• They need it. It's do have buildings. They need it.
• because we need to fix that. because we need to fix that.
• We need to know.
• <01:43:36.480> Now need doesn't exist. Now need doesn't exist.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened its first meeting on retained education funding bills, focusing on HB 366, which concerns school building aid for eligible projects, and HB 295, which would make school building aid program funds non-lapsing. The chair framed the discussion broadly around whether school building aid should remain a state program, how to address limited revenues, and whether the current system should continue to prioritize debt service and the existing formula or move toward a different model such as per-pupil allocations, a dedicated fund, or a split between new construction and renovation. He also raised questions about whether leasing should be included and how to manage any new fund under current law and the school building authority structure. Representatives and department staff discussed the current backlog of applications, the age and condition of school facilities, and the possibility that large projects can consume available funding for a year while other districts go unsupported. Tim Carney of the Bureau of School Facilities introduced himself and provided technical context on the program and current debt levels. Representative Luneau argued that under the ConVal decision, the state’s responsibility includes school buildings, construction, and renovation, and that the program also serves an equity function by helping districts with less property wealth. He noted that construction and renovation have long been recognized categories and asked about leasing, which staff said is already supported in statute for charter schools and possibly CTE, with a cap of 30% of annual lease cost or $50,000. The discussion also covered CTE facilities: staff explained that capital funding for CTE centers is state-funded, that federal Carl Perkins funds cannot be used for construction, and that the current rotational capital model means only a few centers are funded each year, which may not match changing program needs. A committee studying CTE capital needs was referenced, along with concerns that the report from that work had not yet been received. Representative Papich urged the subcommittee to focus on policy, principles, and structure rather than just numbers, saying the current system produces a few winners and many districts that never receive aid. He favored a simpler, more equitable per-capita or formula-based approach, while acknowledging the need for a transition plan for projects already in the pipeline. The chair later cautioned against mixing maintenance and operations with construction and renovation, noting that operation and maintenance are already part of the adequacy formula and should not be confused with capital funding. No votes were taken during the meeting; the discussion was exploratory, with members and staff laying out competing approaches and identifying issues for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• We really need that.
• We need to know.
• So something needs to get done with that. That needs to happen.
• But by Navajo Nation, we need that money; we need that water.
• We need, our bodies need a break.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to keep these projects viable, and they need to be funded.
• You mentioned purpose and need.
• We need to have that clarification.
• In closing, let me just say that we need to make sure that that inventory is updated, and we need to
• We need to have that clarification.

Bills: HF4807

Keywords: overweight vehicles, aggregate mining, local ordinance restrictions, legislative audit, transportation, resource inventory

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to streamline agency approvals, and we need to partner with our local communities.
• [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] we<01:14:07.120> need<01:14:07.480> to we need to we need
• I've heard about the urgent need that we need more mental health providers.
• I've heard about the urgent need that we need more mental health providers.
• I've heard about the urgent need that we need more mental health providers.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We do need legislative authority to accept the grant. We do need the appropriation.
• I'm saying I think we need to be open to those adjustments at the time if we need to. Mr. Chairman.
• We don't need the employees. We might need to reassess to say, I— We don't need the employees.
• It's the flexibility that I talked to Brady about that we need because I might need to transfer to the
• That has brought forward the flexibility we need because otherwise we would need the dollars and the

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Appropriations Division met in a work session on the draft Rural Health Transformation appropriations bill, 25.1392.01000, with no public testimony taken. Legislative Council and the Department of Health and Human Services walked through the bill, which would appropriate about $397.8 million in federal grant funds over two federal fiscal years, provide transfer authority, allow certain federal funds to be used for salaries and wages without counting against existing transfer limits, and authorize OMB to adjust other agencies’ spending authority if they receive grant awards through HHS. The bill also includes several temporary statutory exemptions to help implement the program, plus recipient acknowledgement/reporting requirements, periodic reports to Legislative Management, and an immediate effective date upon filing. Committee discussion focused heavily on how the federal rural health transformation money can be used and administered. Department officials explained that CMS will review projects for allowability and sustainability, that the state has flexibility to move funds among categories, and that the grant is limited to 10% administrative costs. Members asked about whether the funding could support renovations, equipment, ambulances, bulk purchasing, food distribution, and other rural health ideas, and were told many details will depend on CMS approval and the eventual applications. Questions also addressed cash flow, timing of obligations and reimbursements, FTE funding, and whether grant recipients should be told the program will not continue beyond the federal period; officials said the language is meant to prevent expectations of automatic continuation, not to bar future legislative action. The committee also discussed the bill’s use of a two-year appropriation amount, with staff explaining that the state must appropriate enough authority to cover the federal grant cycle and that unused authority would lapse if the full amount is not received or spent. Members raised concerns about whether the bill’s language could limit creativity or future program design, but department officials and several members emphasized the need for flexibility because CMS may reject overly specific directives. After discussion, the committee voted to recommend the bill draft to the full committee; the motion carried on a roll call vote, and the chair said the full Joint Appropriations Committee would take up the bill at the special session next week.

Transcript Highlights:

• It all needs to happen as the legislature needs to say It all needs to happen as the legislature needs
• Might need some help.
• , we need greater efficiency, and we certainly need higher trust.
• I need to wrap this up.
• Because you need it. I mean, you need both, right?

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think we need to feel like we need to have a better sense of what exactly it could be.
• versus capital needs.
• versus capital needs.
• need to educate our children.
• People need to get to where they need to go. We also would...

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 55, the governor’s FY25 supplemental budget proposal to spend about $1.3 billion in surplus Fair Share revenue. House and Senate chairs framed the bill as a one-time opportunity to invest fairly in education and transportation, while also noting the need to protect the state’s long-term fiscal balance. Administration officials said the proposal should be considered alongside the FY26 budget and related bills, since the governor’s broader Fair Share plan aims for roughly an even split between education and transportation over time. Secretary of Administration and Finance Matthew Gorzkowicz, Transportation Secretary Monica Tibbits-Nutt, and Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler outlined the administration’s priorities. Transportation funding would go mainly to the MBTA and related reserves, including money for the Federal Transit Administration reserve, MBTA stabilization reserve, low-income fares, winter resilience, RTA workforce support, MassDOT workforce and project delivery, and micro-transit grants. Education funding would support universal preschool expansion, early education and care capacity, early literacy tutoring, adult basic education and ESOL, early college and career technical education, MyCAP expansion, and special education circuit breaker funding. The administration emphasized that many of these investments are one-time or multi-year measures designed to address current needs without creating unsustainable recurring costs. Committee members raised concerns about regional equity, especially the large share of transportation money going to the MBTA versus regional transit authorities and rural areas. Several members asked for more detail on how the proposal would benefit Western Massachusetts and other non-MBTA regions, and whether micro-transit and Chapter 90-related investments would be sufficient. Education questions focused on special education reimbursement shortfalls, federal funding cuts to school districts, and how CTE and vocational investments would align students with workforce needs. The administration said it would provide additional data on MBTA versus RTA investment and explained that the special education circuit breaker and transportation reimbursement changes were intended to improve predictability and relief for districts. After the administration panel, Jessica Tang of AFT Massachusetts testified in support of using Fair Share funds to protect public education amid federal uncertainty and cuts. She argued that schools are facing a fiscal cliff, that vulnerable students would be hit hardest by funding losses, and that the Fair Share revenue should be used to preserve services and support students’ needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to rely on the private sector and we need them to be our partners.
• We just need to make sure we need to get them to where the charge and the vehicles need them.
• We just need to make sure we need to get them to where the charge and the vehicles need them.
• But going back to the money, we need money. We need lots of money.
• They need to be replaced, and we need to replace them, if at all possible, using incentive funding.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure focused on California’s EV market, charging infrastructure, and the effects of recent federal actions. The chair opened by emphasizing California’s progress on EV adoption and charging reliability, but also noted ongoing challenges with affordability, access, interoperability, heavy-duty electrification, and federal headwinds. She highlighted interest in technologies such as inductive charging and thanked host organizations and staff before moving to the first panel. State agency witnesses from Go-Biz, CARB, and the California Energy Commission described current programs and priorities. Go-Biz outlined its role in coordinating agencies, supporting permitting, and advancing the state’s ZEV market development strategy and equity action plan. CARB discussed federal attacks on its clean vehicle regulations, litigation to defend waiver authority, and the importance of incentives and regulatory programs such as Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Clean Truck Check, HVIP, and Clean Cars for All. The CEC detailed its funding and regulatory work on charging and fueling infrastructure, charger reliability, payment methods, roaming, and statewide planning, while stressing the need for more charging in multifamily housing and more public DC fast charging. All three agencies said federal rollbacks and permitting delays are major obstacles, but that California remains committed to expanding ZEV adoption. The second panel featured advocates, local government, utility, and research perspectives. CalETC urged continuous state funding through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and emphasized the low-carbon fuel standard, multifamily charging, and managed charging. An EV advocacy group proposed a conquest-style state incentive for new and used EV buyers and argued that multifamily housing is a major untapped market, while also favoring Level 2 charging over Level 1 for most home and apartment settings. Los Angeles County and LADWP described large-scale local deployment of chargers, fleet electrification, workforce training, and the need for sustained funding, agency coordination, and streamlined permitting and grid interconnection. UCS recommended prioritizing replacement of older high-emitting vehicles, using fuel policy revenues to support cleaner cars, and expanding bidirectional charging. The chair closed by asking for more discussion on Level 1 versus Level 2 charging and noted the importance of education, affordability, and practical deployment strategies.

Transcript Highlights:

• just for Blue Earth County we would need just for Blue Earth County we would need to<00:09:16.120
• <00:10:07.880> of<00:10:08.079> inpatient need of inpatient need of inpatient care<00:10
• of care so they're admitted they need of care so they're admitted they need that<00:25:03.720>
• <00:26:10.200> to tailored to the individual's needs to tailored to the individual's needs
• They need to be discharged and to be able to get the service they need in Home and Community Based or

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• But if we're saying we need to, we need to do it. We're saying we need to do it.
• I don't see a need for, for... ...that we don't need that bill.
• And I'm not pushing for that, but do we need it or not needed?
• I would say there needs to be a limit, or it either needs to be...
• And we need to, this needs to either be expanded on, kind of give some guidance.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• To continue to lead both on Chapter 90 and on the need, and on presenting the need for MBTA funding to
• a strong economy, we need to build jobs, we need to build housing, and we need strong transportation
• It's about people needing safe sidewalks and streets without potholes, kids needing a place to ride their
• That they need to execute them.
• In order to address our backlog of road repair needs, we would need to invest at least $20 million.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation held its first hearing of the session on H. 53, Governor Healey’s Chapter 90 proposal to increase state funding for municipal roads, bridges, sidewalks, and culverts. Committee chairs outlined the hybrid hearing process and invited testimony from municipal officials, labor groups, regional planning organizations, contractors, and administration officials. Across the hearing, speakers consistently supported the bill, emphasizing long-deferred maintenance, inflation in construction costs, climate-related flooding, and the need for more predictable, multi-year funding so cities and towns can plan projects and take advantage of the construction season. The administration described H. 53 as part of a broader $8 billion transportation package, proposing to raise annual Chapter 90 funding from $200 million to $300 million for five years, with the additional $100 million distributed by road mileage to better support rural and small communities. They also highlighted $200 million for culverts and small bridges, plus other transportation investments, and said the five-year authorization would provide certainty for municipal capital planning. Municipal witnesses from places including Carlisle, Beverly, Granby, Hatfield, Newton, Nahant, Gardner, Beckett, and Yarmouth described local road and culvert backlogs, rising asphalt costs, and the difficulty of maintaining infrastructure on limited local budgets. Labor and industry witnesses from the AFL-CIO and MAPA said the bill would support good-paying jobs and provide stability for contractors and producers. The MBTA Advisory Board and regional planning representatives also backed the proposal, noting the connection between local roads and the broader transportation system. Committee members asked questions about the road-mile formula, culvert needs, asphalt costs, and the rationale for a five-year authorization. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the committee adjourned after testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to projects need to be designed.
• We need different space. We need better space. We do not need more space.
• We need different space. We need better space. We do not need more space.
• We need better need different space.
• We do not need more space. What space. We do not need more space.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to only take up things that are germane unless it's an exigent or emergent need.
• Okay, we need to talk about this now. We need to deal with this now. It may not make it.
• So we need to be careful, and it's and Under $300 million. So we need to be careful.
• But we need to. When I was coaching. But we need to address this. We need to look at this.
• So I do think it is a critical need to be... ...look at this water issue. We need to know.

Summary: The committee first considered House Resolution 1016, which would have allowed introduction of a bill by Representative Richmond addressing disclosure and restrictions for certain real-estate arrangements where buyers purchase interests in entities rather than direct ownership of property. Richmond said the measure was aimed at transparency, consumer protection, and preventing private tribunals or discriminatory practices, while several members questioned whether it would affect homeowners associations, hunting clubs, arbitration clauses, or duplicate existing law. After discussion, the committee voted down the resolution. House Resolution 1006, sponsored by Representative Schultz, proposed increasing the Homestead Tax Credit by $75, from $600 to $675, using a fund created by Amendment 79 and supported by sales tax revenue. Schultz argued the fund could support the increase now and that families needed relief amid high prices. The committee approved the resolution. The committee then heard House Resolution 1007, presented by Senator King and Representative Eaton, which sought to change how turnback funds are distributed to counties, with a focus on giving counties more predictable annual funding for roads, jails, water, sewer, public safety, and other infrastructure. Members raised concerns about taking $150 million off the top of sales tax revenue and about whether the bill should be handled through budget language instead; the resolution failed. House Resolution 1008, by Representative Wooten and Senator King, would have amended the LEARNS education program to reduce costs, limit or change eligibility, and add performance-based requirements and reporting for certain school-choice funding. Supporters said the program was financially unsustainable and needed accountability, while opponents argued the proposal would create larger problems and that the issue should be handled in the regular session. The resolution failed after a point of order prevented reading a supporting letter into the record. Finally, House Resolution 1009 and House Resolution 1013, both tied to Senator Bryant’s proposals on local control over crypto mines and data centers, were discussed together with testimony about water use, energy demand, and local opposition; both failed. House Resolution 1015, which would have amended the IDEA economic-development bill to remove eminent domain authority and address board accountability, also failed after members said more concerns remained to be worked out.

Transcript Highlights:

• qualified staff to meet this need.
• what kind of slots do we need?
• Do we need more half-day? Do we need more full-day? Do we need more after-hours? Right?
• Adult issues need to stop being in the way of making sure that children have what they need.
• County needs to lead the way.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Human Services heard a long agenda of bills focused largely on child welfare, foster care, child care, CalWORKs, mandated reporting, and public benefits. Early items included AB 890, which would ease county transfer rules for nonminor dependents in extended foster care; AB 461, which would replace punitive truancy-related penalties with supportive services for families; and AB 753, which would create an interim associate teacher pathway to help address the child care workforce shortage. Testimony on these bills emphasized barriers faced by foster youth, low-income families, and child care providers, and members expressed support for the general policy direction. The committee also heard AB 926 on foster care visitation, AB 563 on early childhood planning and reporting, AB 601 on standardized mandated reporter training, AB 1074 on CalWORKs reunification aid, AB 822 extending the Commission on the State of Hate, AB 970 creating a Los Angeles County mandated reporter pilot, AB 1161 protecting public benefits during disasters, AB 1172 allowing trained staff to administer emergency seizure medication in community care settings, and AB 363 expanding CalWORKs student supports and work-study. Witnesses generally supported these measures as ways to reduce trauma, improve reunification, modernize reporting and training, and expand access to services. County welfare and child welfare groups, advocacy organizations, and providers largely testified in support, while some bills drew concerns from county representatives about implementation or needed amendments. Several bills were voted out of committee, often unanimously and sometimes as amended, including AB 926, AB 563, AB 601, AB 1074, AB 822, AB 970, AB 1161, and AB 1172; AB 1172 was reported on call. The committee also took up consent items and later voted on subcommittee-held bills AB 461, AB 753, and AB 890, leaving them on call. At the end of the hearing, the committee heard AB 1211, which would protect CalFresh benefits from federal cuts and require a feasibility study on increasing benefits and eligibility; testimony stressed rising food insecurity and the economic importance of food assistance, but the transcript ends before a final vote on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it needs remedial work. And it needs remedial work. It needs turnoffs.
• I vote no, and it's a painful vote because I see the need, I see the demonstrated need, but honestly,
• we need.
• The first thing that we need to do is get somebody the documentation they need to...
• The first thing that we need to do is get somebody the documentation they need to prove that they are

Bills: SB1063, SB1118, SB1153, SB1154, SB1209, SCM1001

Keywords: appropriation, transportation, safety improvements, Route 70, infrastructure, housing, zoning, middle housing, urban development, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, historic preservation, Grand Canyon, Grand Canyon National Park, special license plate, special plate, license plate, vanity plate

Transcript Highlights:

• are and the massive needs that we have out there and where they are. are needed.
• So one of our biggest needs, the biggest and most important need for this river authority is going to
• But the state needs to encourage regionalization of systems and also needs to look at bigger systems
• if one day we need need more water in the Sabine.
• So to conclude we need more water we need lots of it and we'll work together to plan and ensure that

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Maybe we need them, but we don't need them around here. There's a lot of the NIMBY aspect to this.
• , it is why a batch process is needed, and it is why the PUC rulemakings are needed because we need help
• What do you need?
• And so we need you to lead.
• We might need some more. We might need some more. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman: Thank you, sir.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The red areas are future needs.
• How are we going to meet your needs? Obviously, we do want to meet their needs.
• Knowing that we have future needs for irrigation, we have future municipal needs, future industrial needs
• everybody else fights for too and take away from their needs to further fund water needs.
• Of need, really.

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 need all hands on deck.
• We need to be able to store the energy so that we can use it when we need it.
• We need to work on that.
• It needs your attention now.
• and community needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to only take up things that are germane unless it's an exigent or emergent need.
• At least I look at it and go, okay, we need to talk about this now. We need to deal with this now.
• Okay, we need to talk about this now. We need to deal with this now. It may not make it.
• So we need to be careful.
• But we need to address this. We need to look at this.

Keywords: 1204, all