Transcript Highlights:

• money taxpayers are having to spend money taxpayers are having to spend which<02:38:40.319> is
• <03:55:32.920> uh um for sure they will have to spend uh um for sure they will have to spend
• of the question is what are the spending of the question is what are the spending obligations<04
• So I'm just saying we spend about the same amount of money for EFAs as you're being asked to spend on
• Representative Kcom, when you're talking spending side, are you talking about our spending side as to

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard HB 659, which would establish the New Hampshire College Graduate Retention Incentive Program. A Department of Revenue Administration analyst explained technical issues in the bill, focusing on whether the incentive is intended to operate as a rebate or a tax credit, how it would be administered, and how it would interact with the business enterprise tax and business profits tax. She said the bill’s language was unclear on the administering agency, effective tax years, caps, and carry-forward treatment, and noted that reducing BET can also reduce the BET credit against BPT, though not on a one-for-one basis. Committee members asked follow-up questions about the BET/BPT interaction, administrative costs, and whether the Department of Business and Economic Affairs would need additional staffing. Andrew Horn then testified in support, saying the bill is meant to address the large number of New Hampshire college graduates who leave the state after graduation by encouraging them to stay and by incentivizing businesses to hire them. The chair closed the hearing on HB 659 after no further public testimony. The committee then took up HB 770, a bill to establish a program allowing New Hampshire high school students to earn tuition credits at state higher education institutions through community service. Representative Schultz described the bill as a “triple play” intended to increase volunteerism, expand service and internship opportunities for students, and make college more affordable. Ryan Casey, a junior at Bishop Brady High School, testified that the proposal would help students reduce future loan debt while benefiting communities and encouraging young people to attend college in New Hampshire. Committee members asked about eligibility, including why private and preparatory school students were excluded, whether public school students would qualify, whether mandatory service hours would count, and how the bill’s references to education and business eligibility should be read. Schultz said the exclusion of private and prep schools was intended because public school students are more clearly New Hampshire residents, and she noted that mandatory school service hours had been excluded in revisions. The Department of Education then testified that the program would require significant administration, estimating at least three full-time staff, software or tracking systems, and rulemaking to oversee volunteer sites, schools, student eligibility, and tuition credit distribution. No vote was taken in the excerpt, and the hearing remained in testimony phase.

Transcript Highlights:

• Wildfire spending has been the single biggest driver of rising utility rates.
• That's just a bottomless hole of spending. That's just a bottomless hole of spending for them.
• I spend most of my time on is fighting a lot of those proposals in front of the PUC.
• That's just a bottomless hole of spending for them.
• I spend most of my time on is fighting a lot of those proposals in front of the PUC.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard two bills focused on electricity affordability and utility costs. AB 745, by Assembly Member Irwin, would restructure the California Climate Credit by shifting it from lump-sum payments to direct reductions in volumetric electricity rates and moving the credit to the summer months when bills are highest. The author and UC Santa Barbara economist Dr. Kyle Meng argued this could significantly lower summer rates and better help households during extreme heat. Supporters, including UCS, NRDC, and some labor representatives, favored the concept, with some urging that the gas climate credit also be redirected. No opposition testimony was presented, and the bill passed 18-0 to the floor. The committee then considered AB 825, also presented as an affordability package aimed at reducing electric bills by addressing wildfire mitigation costs, transmission financing, permitting delays, and a review of ratepayer-funded programs. The bill would authorize securitization for undergrounding expenses, remove the first $15 billion in undergrounding capital investments from the rate base for return purposes, create a public transmission financing program using Proposition 4 funds and IBank support, revive the California Power Authority as a public sponsor, and establish a task force to review energy efficiency and demand response programs. The author and witness Matt Friedman of The Utility Reform Network said the bill could save ratepayers billions over time through lower-cost public financing and securitization. Testimony on AB 825 was mixed. Support came from several consumer and clean-energy groups, while utilities and labor raised concerns about the bill’s impact on utility financial stability, wildfire fund participation, liability, and whether the $15 billion securitization cap could discourage undergrounding. Some witnesses also objected to the task force’s potential effect on energy efficiency and demand response programs. Committee members discussed the need to balance affordability with utility creditworthiness and wildfire safety, and several asked for more analysis of market impacts and liability issues. Despite those concerns, AB 825 passed the committee 13-0 and was sent to the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• We estimate that we're going to spend between $24 million and $250 million on... ...to spend between
• You know, there's a good chart on page 28 that breaks down how much we spend and what we spend it on.
• If we spend $160, you're almost doubling the spend on Pharmacy.
• We use a PBM, but we also spend a lot of time trying to manage the PBM as well.
• The PIP director probably spends 80% of his time... the director probably spends 80% of his time on Pharmacy

Keywords: 923, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• for the legislature here to just spend for the legislature here to just spend away. away. away.
• We're continuing to spend.
• We're not advocating for more spending. We did not advocate for the Prop 123 spending.
• And so we're not advocating for more spending. We're advocating for wise spending.
• But instead, the General Assembly is spending more, is spending future money.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The House opened with the national anthem, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a roll call establishing a quorum. Members then approved the journal of April 8, 2026, and heard several introductions and tributes, including recognition of Home Education Day in Colorado, a welcome to Sigma Lambda Gamma members, and a reminder about an education luncheon. The chamber then recessed briefly before moving into second reading and floor consideration of bills. The main substantive debate centered on House Bill 1357, which phases out the Teacher Recruitment Education and Preparation (TREP) program. Supporters said the program serves a relatively small number of students, costs more per student than community college alternatives, and should be wound down so limited state education dollars can go to core services and the school finance formula. Opponents argued the state had promised the program to students who planned their education around it, including some who turned down scholarships, and said the change would harm future teachers and should have been treated as a pause rather than an end. The House adopted an appropriations amendment (L003), withdrew a proposed substitute amendment (L005), and then passed HB 1357 as amended. The House also passed House Bill 1358, which reduces the appropriation for the Colorado Academic Accelerator Grant Program by $5.2 million in general fund. The sponsor described it as a grant program supporting community learning centers and math/STEM enrichment, but said funding will end after the following fiscal year and the program must step down so families can seek other services. The bill was adopted without further opposition. Finally, the House considered House Bill 1359, which redirects certain revenue from public school land natural resource removals to the state public school fund rather than the permanent fund, with projected transfers of $25 million in FY 2025-26 and $45 million in FY 2026-27. Supporters said the measure is needed to help balance the budget. An opponent raised concerns about impacts on a constituent ranch lease tied to a proposed green energy project, but the sponsor clarified the bill applies only to royalties and leases on state-owned public school lands. The House then adopted HB 1359.

Transcript Highlights:

• well as spending all of the $18 billion surplus last year.
• have such extravagant spending in the last year.
• /c><00:07:50.000> all<00:07:50.240> of<00:07:50.319> the spending as well as spending
• all of the spending as well as spending all of the $18<00:07:51.039> billion<00:07:51.840>
• What is our uh on how do we spend money? What is our real<00:08:44.760> priorities?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I can't pay that bill as much as I want to spend the 20 or 25 million that...
• We don't want to spend that $25 million just for every phone call because a fence goes down.
• We don't want to spend that $25 million just for every phone call because a fence goes down.
• Between those two, we do spend a lot of money combating fraud.
• **Chair**: You know, if we've got to spend a lot of time on this, we're gonna pay it.

Bills: SB 1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is to promote responsible spending and improved accountability.
• We've noted instances where they spend a portion on K-12 activities.
• We've noted in instances where they spend a port. to spend workforce development on non-K-12 activities
• And from there, they develop a spending plan.
• The effort is to spend it before you get it. Right. I think they have a plan to spend it.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Auditing Committee received a presentation from Auditor General staff on recurring findings from audits of district school boards, colleges, and universities. For school districts, the main issues discussed included missing or outdated safe-school officer training documentation, weak purchasing-card controls, vendor banking-change fraud risks, incomplete background screenings and disqualification-list procedures, missing website budget disclosures, excessive or untimely IT access, late deactivation of former employees’ access, missed emergency drill deadlines, inaccurate capital outlay and resiliency education records, weak tangible property inventories, adult education reporting errors, untimely bank reconciliations, and improper use of workforce development funds. The auditors said many of these issues are repeated from prior years and are summarized in their annual report on significant findings and financial trends. For universities and colleges, the auditors highlighted similar control weaknesses, including vendor information change controls, IT access issues, cash and investment reconciliation problems, purchasing and procurement deficiencies, personnel and compensation issues, and student fee compliance concerns. Specific examples included a UF consulting contract totaling about $6 million, FAU underreporting carry-forward balances by about $77 million, UCF’s payment loss of about $107,000 from an email scam tied to vendor changes, and a North Florida College unauthorized transfer involving a few hundred thousand dollars. The committee asked questions about the UF consulting work, the FAU carry-forward issue, and whether the listed findings meant every named entity had every issue; auditors clarified that the lists reflected entities with findings in those categories, not necessarily each specific problem. The committee then turned to enforcement for entities with long-standing uncorrected audit findings. Staff reported 144 entities with 197 findings repeated in three or more successive audit reports and recommended sending letters requesting updated corrective-action status, including for late-filed 2022-2023 reports where appropriate. The committee approved the staff recommendation and directed letters to be sent. The meeting ended with members emphasizing the importance of audit oversight and taxpayer accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't have any concerns with spending in this one.
• Are you spending the people's money as wisely and as frugally as possible?
• We have to spend it wisely.
• Our spend to date, we've spent in total about $38,700.
• Spend to date, I know that that's something of interest.

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:

• Here in California, between 2015 and 2020, health care spending has grown 30%.
• As you know, health care spending is generally increasing across the United States.
• Again, work is underway to update the unsatisfactory immigration spending projections.
• To spend, and Indiana about a billion.
• Now, our comments on this initial spending plan start on page 19 of your agenda.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's worth spending a little bit of time on this.
• But they also mean flexible appropriations, not spending to.
• How far does that cut into our spending, represented by the bars?
• What are the rules around potential spending?
• To that note, I'm not going to spend too long on any of these now.

Transcript Highlights:

• and we must spend the money. and we must spend the money.
• <00:36:52.840> has has been identified has the spend has has been identified has the spend
• :36.160> administrative we actually spending on administrative we actually spending on administrative
• The 5% is just the minimum that we can spend.
• The minimum that we can spend.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, we've seen consumer spending has pulled back, business spending has pulled back.
• So therefore, do we want to spend it here or spend it in other states?
• it here or spend it in other states you obviously want to spend it here and you want to keep a piece
• of that recycle so I think y'all or spend it in other states you obviously want to spend it here and
• So what you're spending in taxes is there's never going to be any relief until we stop spending or trying

Bills: SB 1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee held its first hearing of the 89th regular session, adopted nearly identical committee rules from the previous legislature by a 15-0 vote, and began review of Senate Bill 1, the state budget for fiscal years 2026-27. Chair Huffman outlined the budget framework, emphasizing conservative spending, a $332.9 billion all-funds budget, and major priorities including property tax relief, public education, border security, health and human services, transportation, energy, and water infrastructure. She also introduced committee and leadership staff and described the hearing schedule and public testimony procedures. Comptroller Glenn Hager presented the biennial revenue estimate, saying the state has $194.6 billion available for general-purpose spending, including a $23.8 billion ending balance, but warned that revenue growth is returning to more normal levels and that lawmakers should avoid using temporary spikes for ongoing commitments. Senators questioned him extensively about the Economic Stabilization Fund cap, sales tax trends, inflation, and whether the state should consider raising the cap or using severance-tax revenues differently. Hager said the Rainy Day Fund is expected to hit its cap, which would leave more severance-tax revenue in general revenue, and he stressed that infrastructure needs remain significant. The Legislative Budget Board then gave a detailed overview of SB 1 and the budget’s major components. LBB staff explained that the bill includes continued funding for the Foundation School Program, $850 million for the Texas State Technical College endowment, $1.3 billion for the Texas University Fund, $6.5 billion for border security, salary increases for correctional officers and state troopers, $3 billion for dementia research, higher community attendant wages, expanded community-based care, $5 billion for the Texas Energy Fund, and funding to clear volunteer fire department grant backlogs. They also outlined supplemental priorities such as water infrastructure, retirement legacy payments, rail grade separations, wildfire aircraft, and emergency facilities, and said the current controlling budget limit is the tax spending limit. A major portion of the hearing focused on property tax relief. LBB explained that prior-session relief grew from an expected $18 billion to $22.7 billion because of higher-than-anticipated property values and interactions among hold-harmless provisions, and that SB 1 continues and expands relief with $51 billion in total property tax relief, including $3 billion more for compression, $3 billion to raise the homestead exemption from $100,000 to $140,000, and a $500 million placeholder for business tax relief. Senators discussed the automatic nature of some of these costs, the effect of the non-homestead circuit breaker, the role of federal COVID funds, and the need to maintain school finance commitments if the state continues to compress school tax rates.

Transcript Highlights:

• at least 60% of its operational spending on direct instructional expenses, with 50% of the operational
• spending going toward teacher pay.
• , either by increasing its spending by half a percent each year until the district is in compliance,
• spending going toward teacher pay.
• , either by increasing its spending by half a percent each year until the district is in compliance,

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The meeting was a caucus review of a large slate of House and Senate bills, with staff giving short descriptions and members flagging a few concerns. Topics included veterans’ services and courts, child care grants, midwife medication authority, home- and community-based services funding, EMS reciprocity, prescription monitoring, electronic monitoring in care facilities, pregnancy resource center funding, mental health transportation, Access coverage for mild obstructive sleep apnea, school spending requirements, mobile home park training, local government investment pools, task order contract posting, tourism improvement areas, child welfare and kinship placement, neglect standards, family court evidence, prostate cancer cost sharing, assisted living hearings, manufactured home installer licensing, supervised parenting time, vulnerable adult trespass penalties, uranium contamination monitoring, a gas and petroleum refinery study committee, and state park fee exemptions for veterans. Several bills were described as unanimous or on consent, while others drew objections or were noted as controversial. Members raised privacy concerns about electronic monitoring in nursing homes, due process and rural capacity concerns about restricting police transport for mental health patients, opposition to pregnancy resource center appropriations, concerns about environmental review for power plant replacement, and questions about the Access sleep apnea mandate as potentially favoring vendors. Some bills were noted as having committee amendments, including changes to appropriations, eligibility criteria, reporting requirements, and definitions. No floor votes were taken in the transcript itself; instead, the chair repeatedly noted whether bills were unanimous, on consent, or had split votes in committee. The caucus also heard brief announcements about an upcoming breakfast with the CAP director, a Latino Caucus meeting, and an Affordability Award presented to Representative Volk, after which the caucus adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's an honor to spend some time with you, sir. We're appreciative.
• I think another piece to highlight here is this is a multiyear spending plan.
• So that's where the specific spending plan comes.
• Where's where's the most efficient spending?
• That's not where we want to spend our money, right, and stuff. So, thank you. Secretary Garcia.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a lot of money for discretionary non-defense spending.
• to spend your other available sources of funding to make benefits hold.
• And the deficit spending that's triggered by H.R. 1 is.
• Deficit spending that would be triggered. Why am I freaking out about this?
• They're going to spend the money.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that gets factored into the per-pupil spending that’s being quoted here, is that correct?
• colleague about the per puple spending colleague about the per puple spending and<00:42:09.880><
• The problem is spending on vouchers is spending of choice.
• <01:51:54.719> of is spending on vouchers is spending of is spending on vouchers is spending
• > uh<01:51:57.400> public choice spending on public uh public choice spending on public

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to a declining economy or lower. forecast of revenue growth, but included in revenue available to spend
• I can't really do that by... carry forward because the carry forward is a function of both spending and
• You were able to spend federal funds instead, so that contributed to a key accumulating unspent state
• Once the restrictions were lifted and households started going out. out and spending again, that coming
• more of their money on goods, wealthier Texans spend more on those services.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, are the most important thing is, are we, are there federal funds that we are unable to spend because
• our toll credit balance, and are we still getting to, I know there's uh additional conditions on spending
• because we don't have unable to spend because we don't have the<00:11:38.000> toll<00:11:38.320
• <00:11:51.360> a additional conditions on spending a additional conditions on spending a dollar
• If we were to spend toll program.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We've asked the California Earthquake Authority to spend focused time on those.
• And then there's no audit on whether they actually spend that money.
• But there's not a process for saying, did they spend the money on the back end?
• They could be spending it on anything else, right? So that's where this gap is.
• The problem is, do they actually spend it?

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee held the first of several informational hearings on the SB 254 Natural Catastrophe Resiliency Study, focused on wildfire risk, utility liability, and how to finance catastrophic losses. Chair Allen opened by describing California’s recent utility-ignited wildfires, the creation of the wildfire fund under AB 1054, and SB 254’s extension of that fund and requirement for a study. The California Earthquake Authority, as wildfire fund administrator, presented the report’s process and findings, emphasizing that the study was intended to be neutral and broad, based on extensive stakeholder outreach, and that the status quo is not working well for survivors, communities, ratepayers, insurers, or utilities. CEA’s report organized recommendations into three policy pathways: continued mitigation investment, more equitable allocation of catastrophe burdens, and expanded state roles in catastrophe financing. For utilities, the report discussed options such as setting a binding risk-tolerance standard, preserving safety certificate accountability, tying executive compensation more directly to safety, creating confidential reporting with safe-harbor protections, reforming utility liability including possible changes to inverse condemnation, limiting damages, reducing insurance subrogation, and creating a fast-pay facility for survivors. The financing analysis compared a more durable wildfire fund, risk transfer/reinsurance, liability reforms, and state-backed mechanisms such as a state insurer, a state backstop, and broader funding for community wildfire mitigation. The CPUC said wildfire mitigation oversight has improved, but wildfire-related costs are driving electricity bills higher and creating an affordability crisis. The Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety highlighted its wildfire mitigation plan review and field inspections, and recommended stronger safety reporting and more safety-weighted executive compensation. In member discussion, senators and assemblymembers focused on the cost of the status quo, whether the burden should be shared by ratepayers, utilities, the state, or other parties, and whether California should consider broader disaster-financing approaches. Several members raised concerns about inverse condemnation, the pace of survivor compensation, local land-use responsibility, and the need for a more comprehensive statewide solution rather than piecemeal bills. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• And here in California, between 2015 and 2020, health care spending has grown 30%.
• As you know, health care spending is generally increasing across the United States.
• One thing to note: the total estimated spending will change in May.
• Now, our comments on this initial spending plan start...
• Proposition 35 changes the rules on how to spend the funds beginning in 2027.

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.