Transcript Highlights:

• She had trouble telling her left from her right and to blend sounds, even in hula.
• her</c><02:55:38.960><c> right</c><02:55:39.840><c> uh</c><02:55:40.000><c> to</c><02:55:40.240><c> blend
• </c> tell her left from her right uh to blend tell her left from her right uh to blend sounds<02:55:41.520

Summary: The committee on Education met on February 17 and announced it would limit public testimony to one minute because more than a thousand testimonies were expected on one measure. The first bill heard was HB 1934, relating to the Imagination Library of Hawaii. The state librarian and Friends of the Library supported the bill, saying the program is a proven, cost-effective way to improve early literacy and should be expanded statewide for children ages 0 to 5. Friends of the Library said the current 50/50 match requirement would be too difficult to meet immediately and asked for state funding for the first few years to help launch the expansion. Testimony included eight supporters and one opponent, and members asked whether the proposal was an expansion of an existing program; the state librarian said it would expand service beyond currently targeted communities. The committee then heard HB 20004, which would extend the floating librarian pilot program. The state librarian, Department of Education, HSTA, and several individuals testified in support. Supporters said the program helps address staffing needs and improves student readiness, especially for college and information literacy. One retired community college librarian said school librarians help students prepare for college and are increasingly important in teaching critical evaluation of misinformation and AI-generated content. Members asked about implementation of the existing pilot, including recruitment of certified librarians for neighbor island and Oahu complex areas; DOE said those positions had been identified and recruitment was underway, and existing funds remained intact. The final major discussion was HB 2398, which clarifies the library system’s role in RNMSP-related projects and public library construction on or near school land. The state librarian and public library system supported the bill, while the Department of Education and Attorney General’s office raised concerns about vague language, especially the phrase “land controlled by the board,” and suggested amendments. In questioning, the state librarian explained that the bill was prompted by conflicts on shared or adjacent school/public library sites, including traffic, pickup and drop-off access, and other operational issues. DOE described significant disruption from one project’s traffic changes and said planning for such projects should involve early coordination and formal agreements. The state librarian responded that the new bill would clarify oversight and help avoid delays and disputes over property control and future renovations.

Transcript Highlights:

• be uh total expenditures would go up by $520,83 of which state funding would be 166657 based on a blended
• state funding would be 166657 based<00:14:20.560><c> on</c><00:14:21.440><c> a</c><00:14:21.680><c> blended
• </c><00:14:22.399><c> percentage</c><00:14:22.800><c> of</c><00:14:22.959><c> the</c> based on a blended
• percentage of the based on a blended percentage of the 90s,<00:14:23.600><c> the</c><00:14:23.839><c

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• And the only difference really is that we tried to blend in the intent from the House and the Senate
• And the only difference really is that we tried to blend in the intent from the House and the Senate
• And the only difference really is that we tried to blend in the intent from the House and the Senate
• so that the faculty members can teach regular courses if Only difference really is that we tried to blend

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• For them to install them, the diesel fuel that's burnt, the discharge from builders, it's significant
• That's why there's 5,500 gallons of diesel capacity on here, because they will have to go into shutdown
• That's why there's 5,500 gallons of diesel capacity on here, because they will have to go into shutdown
• That's why there's 5,500 gallons of diesel capacity on here, because they will have to go into shutdown
• </c> why there's 5,500 gallons of diesel why there's 5,500 gallons of diesel capacity<02:00:03.400><c

Committee: House Science, Technology and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• any reserves of natural gas, any of the petroleum-type products, and that we get 80% of our gas and diesel
• products and that we get 80% of our gas products and that we get 80% of our gas and<00:08:26.879><c> Diesel
• 28.280><c> of</c><00:08:28.400><c> our</c><00:08:28.560><c> natural</c><00:08:28.960><c> gas</c> and Diesel
• and 25% of our natural gas and Diesel and 25% of our natural gas from Canada<00:08:32.519><c> when</

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 224, which would redirect most money from New Hampshire’s renewable energy fund back to electric ratepayers. The bill sponsor argued the measure would lower energy costs, noting recent utility rate increases and estimating annual savings of roughly $2.5 million to $7.3 million for ratepayers. Supporters said the fund has accumulated money that should be returned to customers rather than used for subsidies, and they emphasized that the state has already rebated similar funds from RGGI for years. Opponents, including Rep. Kat McGee, argued the renewable energy fund is a successful, nonlapsing dedicated fund that supports local clean-energy projects, energy resilience, emissions reductions, and private investment. McGee said the fiscal note overstated the benefit of rebates and understated the loss of investment, claiming the average annual rebate would amount to less than $10 per customer while the program has helped leverage significant private dollars and nearly 10,000 projects. She urged the committee to reject the bill as a poor deal for the state and ratepayers. Committee members questioned the fiscal note, the size of the rebate, whether the bill would set a precedent for other dedicated funds, and whether the program’s incentives amount to picking winners and losers. The Department of Energy testified neutrally, explaining how the renewable energy fund works, including renewable energy credits, alternative compliance payments, and the fund’s use for renewable energy initiatives. No vote was taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• continues to grow in a way that fits, primarily through accessory dwelling units and mixed use that blend

Summary: The committee heard eight bills, mostly on local government, housing, and public agency contracting. AB 1658 would make permanent higher change-order authority for Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties on large construction projects; supporters said it would reduce delays and save money on major projects, and the bill passed 6-0. AB 2263 would authorize the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to develop employee-preference affordable housing; supporters said it would help with workforce retention and long commutes, and it also passed 6-0. AB 2134 would require city councils to allow parental leave without forcing members to seek public approval or risk losing their seats; supporters described the bill as necessary to protect new parents in local office, and it passed 6-0. AB 2188 would raise Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s contracting authority to $250,000, with supporters citing administrative savings and faster project delivery; after committee amendments, it passed 6-0. AB 2033 would let general law cities use job order contracting for repair and maintenance work, with safeguards against employee displacement; supporters called it an efficiency tool, while AFSCME opposed it over workforce impacts, and it passed 8-0 after amendments. AB 1768 would authorize Los Angeles County and Contra Costa County to ask voters to approve a temporary transactions and use tax to help offset major federal health care cuts and preserve clinics and public health services. Supporters from community clinics, Planned Parenthood, labor groups, counties, and health organizations said the measure would let voters decide how to respond to funding losses; opponents, including CalTax and some cities, raised affordability and tax-burden concerns. Members also discussed equity concerns within Los Angeles County and the importance of local control. The bill was moved out on a 5-2 vote and left on call. AB 2415 would allow the city of Folsom to shift housing obligations away from its historic district and toward other transit-oriented sites; supporters said it would preserve the historic district while still meeting housing goals, and it passed 10-0. AB 2741, heard at the end of the meeting, would give cities a grace period to fix housing elements that were certified by HCD but later found noncompliant by a court, especially where cities relied on overlay zones. Supporters from the League of California Cities, Redondo Beach, and real estate groups said cities acted in good faith and should not be immediately subjected to builder’s remedy; opponents from California YIMBY and legal aid groups argued the bill would weaken housing accountability and reward noncompliance. The transcript ends during testimony on AB 2741, before a final vote is recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• continues to grow in a way that fits, primarily through accessory dwelling units and mixed use that blend

Committee: House Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• wrong information, but the average person would not be able to, especially when it's so seamlessly blended

Committee: House Health and Mental Health

Transcript Highlights:

• We're kind of blending our two panels. Yeah, no problem. That's okay.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're kind of blending our two panels. Yeah, no problem. That's okay.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation held a hearing focused first on courthouse facility funding and then on the Governor’s proposed court facilities budget. Legislative Analyst’s Office staff outlined the state’s court-facilities funding structure, including the 2002 shift of trial court facility responsibility from counties to the state, the main funding accounts, the insolvency of the construction fund, the move to General Fund support, the backlog of deferred maintenance, and the large estimated cost of needed new construction and repairs. Judicial Council representatives and judges from Los Angeles and Mendocino described severe seismic, safety, ADA, security, and maintenance problems, with examples of floods, elevator failures, asbestos-related closures, and long-delayed or underfunded projects. They argued that chronic underinvestment is making facilities less safe and more expensive to maintain, and that courthouse conditions directly affect access to justice and public confidence. Committee members pressed witnesses on how projects are prioritized, whether population and filing volume are adequately reflected, why reassessments have not been updated since 2019, how long acquisitions and construction take, and what level of funding would actually close the gap. Members also questioned the fixed county contribution, the use of General Fund backfills, and whether the state should set a clearer long-term funding target for the judicial branch. LAO staff emphasized that any new General Fund commitment would require tradeoffs with other budget priorities and said the Legislature must decide its appetite for funding. Judicial Council staff said the current prioritization was based on the 2019 reassessment and trailer bill language, that a new reassessment would cost about $14 million, and that acquisition delays are often driven by willing-seller issues and CEQA requirements. The chair asked for written testimony and indicated the committee would consider a future field hearing. In the second panel, Judicial Council and Department of Finance representatives reviewed the Governor’s budget proposals for court facilities. They said the proposal includes continued backfill for the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, several new construction and reappropriation items, relocation of Los Angeles courtrooms from the Spring Federal Building, and completion of a fire/life-safety project in Orange County. A court executive from Ventura testified that courthouse conditions affect public trust, employee morale, and the quality of service, citing roof leaks, elevator breakdowns, and HVAC failures as examples of why sustained facilities funding is needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're kind of blending our two panels. Yeah, no problem. That's okay.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation held a hearing focused on courthouse facility funding and the Governor’s budget proposals for the judicial branch. The Legislative Analyst’s Office outlined the state’s courthouse funding structure, including the Trial Court Facilities Act, the main facility funds, the fixed county facility payment, and the heavy reliance on General Fund backfill. LAO also explained that the state’s construction funds were depleted after large transfers and declining fine-and-fee revenue, leaving a backlog of roughly 80 construction projects and more than 22,000 deferred maintenance projects statewide. Members and witnesses discussed the long timelines for capital projects, the need for reassessments, and the impact of inflation, CEQA, and site acquisition delays. Judicial branch representatives, including Justice Hill, Judge Moorman, and Judge Tapia, testified that courthouses across the state face serious seismic, ADA, security, and maintenance problems. They described cost-cutting efforts in design and construction, but emphasized that many facilities are aging and unsafe, with examples from Los Angeles, Compton, Ukiah, and other courts involving flooding, elevator failures, asbestos issues, and closures that disrupted thousands of cases. Judge Moorman highlighted the Ukiah courthouse replacement as an example of a project that is on time and on budget and would improve access, safety, and community services. Judge Tapia stressed that deferred maintenance in Los Angeles County alone exceeds $1.4 billion and argued that preventive maintenance is fiscally prudent because emergency repairs and closures are more costly. Committee members pressed the panel on how priorities are set, whether caseload and population growth are adequately reflected, how quickly projects can be accelerated, and what level of funding would actually meet statewide needs. The Department of Finance and Judicial Council staff explained that the county contribution is fixed and not inflation-adjusted, that acquisitions require willing sellers and can be delayed by CEQA and market conditions, and that the Judicial Council’s prioritization process was based on 2019 criteria that may need updating. LAO cautioned that any new General Fund commitment would require tradeoffs with other state priorities and suggested the Legislature decide what level of funding it is willing to support. The committee also reviewed the Governor’s budget proposals for courthouse facilities, which include backfill for the construction fund, selected new construction and judgeship-related projects, and major facility modifications such as the Orange County Central Justice Center and relocation of Los Angeles courtrooms from the Spring Federal Building.

Transcript Highlights:

• in the intercession with the health committee and even yesterday or whenever it was, the days just Blend

Bills: SB38 , SB17 , SB41 , SB264

Committees: Senate Senate Judiciary , Senate House Judiciary

Keywords: SB38, pet food, registered pet food, registration fee, fees, sunset repeal, repeal of repeal, revenue, state fee, business regulation, animal feed, pet food registration, New Mexico, gun control, firearm safety, dealer regulation, illegal trade, background checks, sexual crimes, statute of limitations

Transcript Highlights:

• Community schools implementation works harmoniously with the domains of the California MTSS framework, blending

Transcript Highlights:

• years, local governments learned how to use complicated formulas, create exceptions, shift categories, blend

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on House Bill 2651, a broad property tax reform bill sponsored by Representative Burns. Burns said the bill is intended to close perceived loopholes in the Hancock Amendment, including moving tax-related elections to November, eliminating the new-construction exclusion, allowing multiple subclass rates, and preventing counties from opting out of multiple levies. Supporters argued the bill would better protect homeowners from large tax increases, while opponents and several members raised concerns about the loss of local control, the impact on growing communities, and whether the proposal was revenue neutral. No vote was taken; the bill remained in public testimony. The committee then heard House Bill 2944, which would change Missouri’s senior homestead property tax relief so eligible seniors would only have to apply once instead of annually. Representative Billington said the current yearly paperwork burdens older residents on fixed incomes and can contribute to them losing their homes. Some members supported simplifying the process, but others and the Missouri Association of Counties opposed the bill as written, arguing annual recertification helps ensure only eligible taxpayers receive the credit and that counties need a way to verify continued eligibility. Questions also focused on how to handle deaths, moves, and possible recapture of improperly granted credits. No action was taken. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1786/2060, a joint short-term rental property tax classification proposal from Representatives Brown and Vernetti. The sponsors argued that single-family homes used as short-term rentals should remain classified as residential, not commercial, and said some assessors have reclassified them in a way that sharply raises taxes. They cited case law and IRS treatment to support their position and said the bill would protect homeowners and local tourism economies. The Missouri Hotel Lodging Association opposed the measure, saying short-term rentals used as a business should be taxed accordingly, while the Missouri Realtors supported it. Testimony highlighted concerns about local control, the effect on housing availability, and whether short-term rentals should be treated differently based on frequency of use. No vote was taken on this bill either.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it perfectly blends into the next two slides.

Summary: The committee met to review the governor’s fiscal 2027 budget presentation, with the chair repeatedly asking members to keep questions brief and avoid speeches. The discussion focused first on the overall revenue and spending outlook, including concerns from members that the executive forecast was more optimistic than the JLBC baseline and that the budget appeared to front-load revenue and expenditure growth. The governor’s budget team said the forecast was close to JLBC’s, that the budget was structurally balanced, and that differences were roughly $100 million per year on ongoing revenue. Members asked for follow-up calculations in writing, including the total multi-year gap and the amount of revenue enhancements above base revenues. A major portion of the meeting centered on tax and fee proposals tied to data centers, water use, and sports betting. The governor’s team defended eliminating the existing data center tax incentive as the removal of a loophole rather than a new tax, arguing the incentive had already succeeded in attracting major investment. They also described a proposed Department of Water Resources fee-setting authority for data centers to support a new Colorado River Protection Fund, and said the proposal would apply to existing and future facilities without a grandfather clause. Members raised concerns about fairness, competitiveness, and whether the changes would require a supermajority vote. The team also discussed increased sports betting fees, saying the revenue forecast did not include dynamic behavioral effects. The committee then moved through major spending areas, including corrections, public safety, border security, cybersecurity, K-12 education, Medicaid, and developmental disabilities. The governor’s budget includes ongoing funding to prevent correctional officer pay cuts, money to comply with prison health care court orders, probation funding, body-worn cameras, law enforcement staffing, fentanyl task forces, and cyber readiness grants. Members questioned the lack of funding for a prison oversight committee and asked for corrections spending totals over the administration. On border security, the executive said it was seeking about $759.7 million in federal reimbursement for border-related costs and that the governor had met with federal officials, including Secretary Noem and Tom Homan, about the request. In education, the budget proposes renewing Prop. 123, adding K-12 base funding, and issuing $1.5 billion in school facilities bonds over three years; members debated whether the proposal was appropriate and whether Prop. 123 revenues could support the debt service. The meeting also covered AHCCCS cost growth and federal HR1 impacts, with the executive warning of major coverage losses and hospital funding reductions, and DDD funding, where the governor’s team said the budget fully funds services and includes about $120 million in supplemental needs. No votes were taken; the meeting was a presentation and question-and-answer session only.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it perfectly blends into the next two slides.

Summary: The joint House-Senate appropriations committee met to review the governor’s fiscal 2027 budget presentation from Ben Henderson, director of the Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting. Early discussion focused on the state economy and revenue outlook, with Henderson describing strong GDP growth and low unemployment but also fragility for working families. Members questioned the executive’s revenue assumptions, which were said to be about $100 million per year higher than the JLBC baseline, and the committee chair asked for a written comparison of the revenue differences. Henderson also said the governor’s budget is structurally balanced and includes both ongoing spending and proposed revenue changes. A major portion of the hearing centered on data centers, AI investment, and water policy. Henderson argued Arizona’s data center tax incentive should be eliminated because it had already succeeded in attracting investment, while lawmakers questioned whether repealing the incentive and imposing a new water-related fee would discourage future growth. The executive said the water proposal would create a Colorado River Protection Fund and give the Department of Water Resources fee-setting authority, with the aim of encouraging more modern air-cooled facilities. Members also raised concerns about whether the data center changes would require a supermajority vote and whether the fee was effectively a new tax. The committee then reviewed major “critical spending” items, including correctional officer pay, prison health care compliance, probation funding, body-worn cameras, law enforcement staffing, fentanyl enforcement, cyber readiness, and border-related costs. Henderson said the budget includes $24.4 million ongoing for correctional officer pay and $118.3 million one-time for prison health care staffing, plus other public safety and homeland security items. He also defended the governor’s assumption of $759.7 million in federal reimbursement for border expenses, saying the governor had met with federal officials and that the state would seek the full amount. Members expressed skepticism about relying on that reimbursement and asked what would be cut if it does not materialize. Education and health and human services were also discussed. The governor’s budget includes K-12 funding, Prop. 123-related school facility bonding, and a proposal to shift some school facilities funding to bond financing, which several members criticized as inappropriate for short-term maintenance needs. The committee also reviewed AHCCCS/Medicaid costs, Division of Developmental Disabilities funding, and the expected impacts of federal HR1 changes on eligibility, provider funding, and rural hospitals. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair repeatedly limited debate and directed members to keep questions brief while the presentation continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• Need to have a blending model there.

Summary: The meeting focused on school safety funding and security practices in Oklahoma schools, especially how districts have used school resource officer (SRO) allocation money and related security grants. Kevin Rey of the Oklahoma State Department of Education’s Office of School Safety and Security explained that the program, created under HB 2903, allows districts to use funds for SROs and physical security improvements such as cameras, access control, fencing, window film, bollards, metal detectors, and vape detectors. He said more than 170 districts used the money to hire SROs in 2024-25, and that the 2024 change allowing retired officers and armed security guards to qualify was a major help. Members questioned whether the money should also support prevention and mental health services, and Rey said the current program is mainly for security hardware and related measures. Mark Stout, chief of police for Putnam City Schools, described the district’s layered security approach, including weapon detection at middle and high schools and the ZeroEyes AI camera system, which monitors existing cameras for visible guns and sends alerts to trained monitoring staff and then to district police. He said the system is used as one layer among others, alongside officers, weapon detection, and school procedures, and noted the district is expanding coverage at athletic facilities. He also explained that the system is more economical than full weapon-detection setups, with annual costs based on the number of cameras. Tecumseh Superintendent Kinsey, Chief Kennedy, and Pottawatomie County law enforcement described the October threat investigation involving a student who posted a photo with a handgun and knife and discussed violence online. They said the FBI tip, rapid coordination among agencies, and an SRO already embedded in the district helped lead to a search warrant and arrest within hours, preventing a possible attack. Kinsey also described the district’s safety measures, including secure entrances, cameras, ALICE training, crisis communication planning, mental health support, clear backpacks, and a new staff alert system. He said community feedback after the incident favored more law enforcement partnership, limited entry points, handheld metal detectors, more SROs, stronger training, and more mental health support. Matt Riggs, former superintendent of McComb, said smaller districts face different security challenges because of limited local law enforcement and long response times. He explained that McComb used its funding for facility upgrades rather than hiring a full-time SRO because the district wanted improvements that would last beyond the three-year funding window. Throughout the discussion, several members emphasized the tension between visible security measures and prevention, with repeated calls for more counselors, mental health supports, and threat-assessment efforts alongside hardening measures. No formal votes or actions were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• rolling average at various percentages, anything from 4.7% to about 6.1% for the land-grant fund on a blended

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to blend in with both your comment and your question.

Committee: House Economic & Rural Development & Policy Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• But for the most part, the land development costs are going to be blended, just divided out over how

Committee: House Mortgage Finance Authority Act Oversight Committee