Transcript Highlights:

• Well, thank you so much.
• Well, thank you so much.
• Well, thank you so much.
• Well, thank you.
• Well, thank you.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, thanks. I'm kind of going through.
• Well, the sad part is if your back fence is up against some sort of a rural area, Well, the sad part
• Well, and we had a hearing earlier.
• Well, and we had a hearing earlier.
• Well, good to learn from others.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm well aware of that uh that system.
• with it well-paying jobs. with it well-paying jobs.
• to address healthcare worker well-being to address healthcare worker well-being is<00:34:54.480>
• They feel like, well, what's the care.
• Um, I appreciate this speak as well.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, that's partially because of the partial investment aspect.
• And I think Megafire pointed that out really well.
• And I think Megafire pointed that out really well.
• The local government—well, we asked that question already.
• Well, thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, that's partially because of the partial investment aspect.
• Well, again, good morning, Chair Bennett, members of the committee.
• And I'm very proud you have the home builders here in the room as well.
• And I think Megafire pointed that out really well.
• Well, thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation held an oversight hearing on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation strategies. The chair opened by stressing that California has reached a tipping point, with repeated community-scale wildfire losses, rising insurance costs, and growing utility wildfire mitigation expenses. The hearing was organized around four panels: what home hardening and defensible space are, community risk reduction and coordination, evaluation of current defensible space programs and proposed investments, and the future of home hardening and the California Wildfire Mitigation Program. The first panel featured IBHS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and local wildfire mitigation advocates. IBHS described wildfire spread through embers, flames, and radiant heat, emphasizing that structure separation, removing combustible materials within the first five feet of a home, and combining multiple mitigation measures significantly reduce loss. It highlighted its Wildfire Prepared Home and Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood standards, including an “essential” and “enhanced” level, and said California is ahead of other states but still needs scalable, standardized, and sustainably funded mitigation. The LAO outlined key policy questions for the Legislature, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, measurement of success, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. The chair and panelists discussed estimated costs, including roughly $15,000 for a basic retrofit and about $50,000 for more extensive ignition-resistant construction, and whether state funding should focus on the most cost-effective initial measures. The second panel focused on scaling adoption through local coordination, education, financing, and community-based programs. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption problem and said the state should not try to pay for every home, but instead target high-leverage interventions across the “customer journey,” including education, financing, trusted certification, and neighborhood network effects. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council described free home assessments, small retrofit grants, Firewise community support, and the importance of neighborhood-level action, local capacity, and cultural change. Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described its locally funded model, grant program, public education efforts, and an Ember Ready program that helps residents navigate home hardening and Zone Zero compliance. The chair repeatedly emphasized the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, stronger incentives, better insurance discounts, and more use of local, utility, federal, and private funding sources. The third and fourth panels addressed Cal Fire’s defensible space inspection program, the proposed defensible space financial assistance program, and broader state investments. Cal Fire said homes lacking compliant defensible space are far more likely to be damaged or destroyed and requested ongoing funding and staffing to stabilize inspections statewide; the LAO suggested the Legislature consider alternative funding sources such as GGRF or a reinstated SRA fee. Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal explained that Zone Zero sets a minimum standard, local governments cannot go below it, and grant prioritization will favor jurisdictions that submit inspections. Cal Fire also said the new defensible space financial assistance program would focus on ember-resistant zone-zero work and, in the Southern California counties covered by the legislation, would assist about 3,125 homes at an estimated $8,000 per home. In the final panel, the State Fire Marshal described California’s layered strategy of parcel-level home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, along with technical support, financial assistance, and incentives such as insurance discounts and builder marketing. The overall theme was that California must move from isolated efforts to a coordinated, science-based, and scalable statewide approach to reduce wildfire losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I'm still confused.
• Well, I want to be clear.
• Well, I want to be clear.
• >> Well, we certainly going to try, Mr. >> Well, we certainly going to try, Mr.
• Well, let me put it Well, we do a Yes. Well, let me put it this<00:54:44.319> way.

Keywords: Public Health and Welfare - Room 216, 21 January, 2026; 3:30 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 3, a certificate-of-need measure that had passed last year but was vetoed by the governor because of one objectionable provision. The chair explained that the House had just passed the bill unanimously and urged quick Senate action so it could be sent to the governor again. He said the bill is intended to restore the prior law, with the main policy focus on rural hospitals and other future certificate-of-need changes. A question was raised about language affecting the University of Mississippi Medical Center’s academic exemption; the chair said the intent was to preserve the teaching hospital’s core exemption around its main campus while requiring certificate-of-need review for facilities it operates elsewhere, and the committee then voted title sufficient, due pass. The committee then considered Senate Bill 2476, requested by the Board of Pharmacy. Senator Hill explained that it would let licensed pharmacists self-report substance abuse or mental health issues and enter treatment before disciplinary action, similar to programs already available for nurses and with comparable provisions for physicians and dentists. Board representatives said participants would have to stop practicing until cleared, and that failure to comply would trigger discipline; the bill was described as an alternative to professional discipline, not immunity from criminal law. After questions about definitions and how many times a person could use the program, the committee voted title sufficient, due pass. The meeting concluded with an informational presentation from Mr. Anderson on child care funding and program operations. He said the state used ARPA funds during the pandemic to support child care certificates and providers, but those funds were exhausted, leading to a pause and a waiting list of about 20,000 families; the program currently serves about 18,000 children. He said the department is continuing $15 million in state support, is converting 30% of the TANF state assistance grant to child care, and is exploring additional TANF direct-assistance options, though cautiously because the state has not done that before. He also discussed child care tax credits, employer-based child care, and efforts to expand capacity through provider support and technical assistance.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I mean, here it is.
• We are very well aware of those issues.
• As well as Representative McQueen.
• help with water conservation as well.
• I speak for myself and I see others as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, there's something that Carla said, and Jamie said a couple times about the governor's budget, Well
• Well, I was confused.
• Well, I shouldn't say.
• Well, you go ahead and set the stage. Yeah. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the time.
• Well, anyway, we'll discuss them later.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Some of the things have been flagged as well, and I would just start with line 31 as well.
• I wanted to flag that as well, Mr. Chair.
• Well, where the 3 million is, we need 6 million.
• And, well, we don't have an appropriation there.
• And so I'm supporting that as well.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I would just add to that as well.
• I would just add to that as well. I would just add to that as well.
• that may very well be the case, Senator? that may very well be the case, Senator? Okay. Okay.
• Well, you generated it. Thank you, Mr. Well, you generated it. Thank you, Mr.
• Well, Yes, we have discussion.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:44.280> who for renters, as well as understand who for renters, as well as understand
• was not well cared for. was not well cared for.
• Well, we'll talk offline. Uh okay. Well, we'll talk offline.
• well? well? Representative<00:37:30.520> Bajaj.
• And so I hope that we that well.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 2687, as amended by a DE1 amendment. The amendment narrowed the bill to prohibit private equity companies from buying single-family homes and to limit corporations and partnerships to owning no more than 50 single-family homes, with enforcement through the Attorney General’s office. The committee adopted the DE1 amendment, and the author, Representative Bajaj, described the bill as a step toward expanding homeownership and reducing corporate concentration in the housing market. Representative Bajaj and supportive testimony argued that corporate ownership of single-family homes makes it harder for first-time buyers and working families to compete, especially in lower-income neighborhoods, and can lead to absentee ownership and poor maintenance. Ellen Sahli of the Family Housing Fund cited research on single-family rentals showing that larger portfolios are associated with worse renter experiences, higher rents, and more repair problems. Rachel Ruby Jones testified in support based on her experience renting from Havenbrook, describing flooding, delayed repairs, safety concerns, and poor treatment by management, and said private equity ownership can shift risks and costs onto vulnerable tenants. Opposition focused on market effects and the bill’s scope. Mark Brunner of the Minnesota Manufactured Home Association said the language was too broad and could unintentionally affect manufactured home communities on leased land. Paul Eger of Minnesota Realtors warned that market prohibitions could create unintended consequences, especially in a cyclical housing market, and suggested alternatives such as tax incentives for sales to owner-occupants and more first-time buyer assistance. In member discussion, Representative Nash questioned whether the problem was widespread and pressed for details on enforcement and divestiture; Representative Agbaje said the current language is forward-looking, would not force existing owners below the cap, and would rely on lawsuits and remedies the Attorney General deems appropriate, with more detail to be worked out later. The chair indicated the bill would be laid over for further consideration and likely move next to Judiciary, with some discussion of whether Commerce should also be a stop.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Padilla: Well, Mr.
• Well, Mr.
• Well, Mr.
• Just these things need to be well thought out.
• You know, it's not that no one's bad; just these things need to be well thought out, incredibly well

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, you trying to address that as well.
• to help UK promote that program as well. to help UK promote that program as well.
• , the, you know, everybody says, "Well, the, you know, everybody says, "Well, why<00:36:17.359>
• Um so I'm excited that you're well.
• Well, any >> Yes, sir. Thank you so much. Well, any other<00:40:24.400> business?

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:08 Approval of Minutes 00:43 KOAP Report 00:59 KY Office of Drug Control Policy 23:04, 958, all

Summary: The committee met on September 18, 2025, approved the July 10 minutes, and received Brandon Reid’s monthly report on Kentucky agriculture development and finance activity for July and August. Reid emphasized the long-running structure created under House Bill 611 and Senate Bill 28, the role of county agriculture development councils in all 120 counties, and the importance of the program as a national model for supporting Kentucky agriculture. He also introduced new staff and interns, including a new loan programs manager, Rachel Coward, and project manager Kylie Davis. For July, the development board reported $3.4 million invested in agriculture and the finance corporation reported $3.1 million in loans. Highlights included 11 county council meetings, site visits, program reviews, and 18 project reports. July approvals included county agriculture incentive programs, deceased farm animal removal programs, youth incentive programs, county/state projects, infrastructure loans, an agriculture processing loan, and beginning farmer loans. Staff also noted that all 120 counties had submitted their required five-year comprehensive plans on schedule. Bill McCloskey then highlighted several funded projects, including Dino’s Farm LLC in Jefferson County, which received support to purchase a meat processing facility and equipment, with the goal of creating market opportunities for goat, sheep, and cattle producers and establishing Kentucky’s first halal meat processing facility. Other projects included a veterinarian facility project to address large animal vet shortages and Grow Appalachia at Berea College, which provides technical assistance and market support for small-scale and eastern Kentucky producers. Members discussed the need for programs such as high tunnels and other small-scale opportunities in rural areas, and staff noted related resources such as CAPE and NRCS funding. For August, the board reported $500,000 in development board investments and just over $3 million in finance corporation loans, along with fewer staff activities than July but continued county council, site visit, and project review work. August approvals included county agriculture incentive programs, deceased animal removal programs, youth incentive programs, county/state projects, agriculture infrastructure loans, beginning farmer loans, and a horticulture incentives loan. Additional project updates included another veterinary equipment purchase, emergency safety equipment in Graves County, and a food safety and efficiency incentive for Jared Cornet.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, let's give them a good product to decide on. And so I thank you for this.
• So, you know, I think it's well within our purview.
• Well, let's think about that.
• Since I have my, the former senator, well, he was behind here. Oh. Oh. Well, he was behind here.
• Fast forward a number of years to present day, and we're well under 16%.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, members, thank you.
• I certainly did well enough to have members vote to approve the bill.
• Well, that's not gonna happen.
• I sit on the health committee as well and appreciate your work.
• And I can't forget to mention the $40 million of SSIS funding as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, you know, I think it's well within our purview.
• So for 60-something-plus days, we could have been talking about that as well.
• Well, let's think about that.
• Since I have my, the former senator, well, he was behind here. Oh. Oh. Well, he was behind here.
• Fast forward a number of years to present day, and we're well under 16%.

Summary: The Senate took up Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F, a proposed constitutional amendment on property tax reform. The measure would increase the homestead exemption in stages, lower the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limit county and municipal ad valorem tax revenues to specified uses such as public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resources, debt service, employee benefits, and certain administrative costs. Supporters, led by Senator Avila, argued the proposal would provide meaningful property tax relief and push local governments to rein in spending, while opponents warned it would shift costs to fees, reduce local flexibility, and threaten funding for core services. Several amendments were offered and rejected. Senator Sharief proposed an income-based circuit breaker for property tax relief; Senator Smith offered a sunset clause; and Senator Berman proposed revising the ballot statement to better match the amended proposal and remove outdated references. Each amendment failed on recorded votes. During questioning and debate, senators pressed Avila on the ballot language, the effect on local services, whether the legislature could later restrict local spending by statute, and whether renters would benefit. Avila said the ballot language was not his and repeatedly stated he was presenting the governor’s proposal, while also saying local governments would need to prioritize budgets and that future legislatures could address implementation details. After the amendment votes, the joint resolution was read a third time and moved into final debate. Supporters said the proposal would give homeowners relief and force fiscal discipline at the local level. Opponents, including Senators Nathan, Bracey Davis, Smith, Polsky, and Errington, argued the measure was rushed, lacked a completed fiscal analysis or replacement revenue, and could harm police, fire, libraries, parks, housing, and other local services. They also criticized the ballot summary as misleading, especially regarding the staged homestead exemption increase. The transcript ends during debate, before any final vote on the joint resolution itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, the changes were, whoops, I think the governor's office, and...
• Well, let's give them a good product to decide on.
• So, you know, I think it’s well within our purview.
• Well, let's think about that.
• Since I have my, the former senator, well, he was behind here. Oh. Oh. Well, he was behind here.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• well.
• They worked very well, but...
• So, I said, well, I better check it out. I was told, well, I need an order for that.
• A big facet of that is peace officer mental wellness or overall wellness.
• Well, that is correct.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But thank you all for your attendance as well.
• And additionally for grid services as well.
• that many here meet as well.
• Well, everything is dispatchable on a certain limit as well.
• Well, I don't know what it messes up.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Business and Commerce held its first interim hearing on securing critical infrastructure and supply chain integrity, with a focus on Texas’s electric grid and the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act. The chair also highlighted Texas’s relatively low electricity prices and welcomed new committee members. ERCOT, the Public Utility Commission (PUC), and the Attorney General’s office were invited to explain how the state screens market participants and grid equipment for ties to China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and how the agencies respond to noncompliance. ERCOT testified that it has implemented the requirements of three related Senate bills by requiring attestations on corporate affiliations and on critical grid equipment and services. ERCOT said it has processed thousands of attestations, used additional requests for information and third-party verification tools such as Dun & Bradstreet, and terminated nonresponsive market participants. ERCOT also said it has not seen a case requiring direct Attorney General involvement, but it does refer matters to the PUC when needed. The PUC said it can investigate suspected violations and impose penalties of up to $1 million per violation per day, and that most investigations into late or missing attestations have been resolved through compliance, market exit, or removal by ERCOT. The Attorney General’s office said its role is currently limited to audits and court involvement, and that it lacks broad independent investigatory authority under the act. Members pressed the panel on whether the current system is too reliant on self-reporting and whether it adequately addresses indirect foreign influence, especially through supply chains for batteries, inverters, transformers, and other equipment with routable connectivity. ERCOT acknowledged that the current attestation process has gaps and said it plans to refine definitions of critical grid equipment and grid services, improve information requests, and continue stakeholder rulemaking. The panel also discussed possible legislative changes, including tying prohibitions to the Department of Defense Section 1260H list and the Texas Prohibited Technologies list, clarifying warranty and service access, and expanding the statute to cover grid services more directly. Several senators raised concerns about cost, reliability, and the extent to which foreign-sourced components remain embedded in Texas infrastructure, while others suggested incentives for domestic manufacturing and stronger verification tools, including possible work with national labs such as Sandia.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I'll just say two things.
• And to date, it's done well.
• Well, this piece doesn't work as well because we didn't address this piece.
• And as well, the providers do as well.
• But we... ...important goal, and as well, the providers do as well.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all