Transcript Highlights:

• I know that there were some requests in the Senate to add our county governments to this, but, you know
• Only to this district and not the larger city or county as a whole.
• And if people have choice, the governed have a voice, and the governed choose to invest in themselves
• , isn't that what we call the proper role of government?
• that we see taking place already in local governments.

Bills: SB1290 , SB1530 , SB1847 , HR1050 , SB169 , SB1377 , SB1990 , SB1991 , SB1778 , SB1579 , SB1992 , SB3 , SB2028 , SB1928 , SB2127 , SB2117 , SB1439 , SB1930 , SB330 , SB1191 , SB2110 , SB2134 , SB2069 , SB2095 , SB1613 , SB1246 , SB1976 , SB1346 , SB1509 , SB2071 , SB259 , SB1314

Keywords: 2-1-1 services, revolving fund, Department of Human Services, crisis pregnancy, abortion, legal funding, research funding, development rebate, Oklahoma Department of Commerce, tax incentives, higher education partnerships, Medicaid, ADvantage Waiver, home-based services, eligibility criteria, healthcare, senior services, Taiwan, Oklahoma, sister-state relationship

Transcript Highlights:

• Postal Inspection Service, and the majority of Minnesota counties were represented, and other local governments
• 87 counties.
• Counties and local governments take their election duties extremely seriously.
• 08.800><c> local</c><00:46:09.119><c> governments</c> leanings counties and local governments leanings
• counties and local governments take<00:46:10.240><c> their</c><00:46:10.400><c> election</c><00:46:10.800

Committee: Senate Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• County line.
• For example, we have looked at Lafayette County. We have looked at Mayo County.
• We have looked at DeSoto County.
• For example, we have looked at Lafayette County. We have looked at Mayo County.
• the Baker County Jail... ...but the Baker County Jail, the Walton County Jail, has bed space where ICE

Bills: S7040 , S0110 , S0434 , S0856

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and took up three property-tax related bills before turning to a broader discussion of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Fund. SB 434, which would prohibit counties from increasing a residential property’s assessed value because the owner installed wind mitigation measures, was presented by Senator Lee and reported favorably. CS for SB 110, which clarifies that holders of 98-year-or-longer residential leases remain eligible for the homestead exemption even if the lease ends at death, was also reported favorably. SB 856, requiring online residential listing platforms to display estimated property taxes using prescribed calculation methods and not the current owner’s tax bill, drew support from property appraisers, Zillow representatives, and others and was reported favorably after questions about transparency and realtor obligations. The committee then considered SPB 7040, which would recreate and extend the Emergency Preparedness and Response Fund through December 31, 2027. Senator DiCeglie and Division of Emergency Management Director Kevin Guthrie argued the fund is needed for hurricane response, other natural and man-made emergencies, and reimbursement-based spending; they said the extension preserves legislative oversight that would otherwise lapse. Several senators questioned the use of the fund for immigration-related operations, detention facilities, and other non-disaster activities, as well as the lack of additional guardrails, reimbursement timing, and transparency. Guthrie said the division has used the fund for hurricanes, flooding, civil unrest, security operations, and other incidents, and that some reimbursements are still pending from the federal government. Public testimony on SPB 7040 was largely opposed. Speakers from the Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Florida for All, and others argued the fund has been repurposed for immigration enforcement and detention-related spending rather than true emergencies, and raised concerns about deaths in detention and the absence of competitive bidding and oversight. Guthrie answered extensive questions about the South Florida and North Florida detention facilities, Operation Vigilant Sentry, State Guard support, reimbursement requests, equipment purchases, and legislative access to facilities. The committee did not take a final vote on SPB 7040 within the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> representative Gul is in Faget County. representative Gul is in Faget County.
• County analyzed the spending of the County analyzed the spending of the Faget<00:08:40.399><c> County
• County Public Schools. So, you may ask County Public Schools.
• ><c> County,</c><00:30:57.919><c> and</c> Bullet County, Jefferson County, and Bullet County, Jefferson
• County, and Fyet<00:30:58.640><c> County.

Summary: The committee met to approve the October 21 minutes and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal relating to prohibited uses of tax dollars and public resources. The sponsors said the bill is intended to strengthen existing law by adding civil and criminal penalties for taxpayer-funded advocacy on ballot questions, especially in light of controversies during the 2024 election over school officials and districts using public resources to oppose a constitutional amendment. They also described related concerns about school districts hiring third-party lobbyists and public relations firms, particularly in Fayette County, and said the proposal was meant to keep tax dollars focused on public services rather than political persuasion. Committee members raised several concerns about scope and drafting. Some asked whether the bill should specifically mention schools, school boards, and school employees, and the sponsors said they would add that language. Others questioned whether the measure would also affect local government lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, and the sponsors said they intended to focus narrowly on schools while exempting certain advocacy organizations and internal government lobbyists. Members also asked whether public employees could still speak as private individuals, and the sponsors said yes. Several members suggested splitting the lobbying and ballot-advocacy issues into separate bills, and the sponsors said they would consider that. Members also pressed for clarification on how the bill would apply in practice, including whether it would cover legal challenges to petition drives or only advocacy after a question is on the ballot. Counsel for the sponsors said the bill would not cover some petition-related litigation as drafted, though they believed it should. The sponsors and supporters argued the proposal was needed to give the existing prohibition real enforcement, while some members warned that the language could unintentionally limit legitimate public representation or be too broad if not carefully drafted. No final vote was taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• County.
• and Yakima County.
• of County Commissioners recognizes how critical this position is to the continued function of government
• in Skagit County.
• County.

Summary: The committee first took up executive action on several bills. SB 5865 on garnishment forms was amended to require the Washington Pattern Forms Committee to finish the new forms by December 31, 2026, with an effective date of January 1, 2027; a competing amendment was withdrawn, and the bill received a due pass recommendation. SB 5880 on toxicology testing by certified laboratories was amended to clarify that local governments may accept private donations to help fund ISO-IEC 17025 testing, without requiring them to do so, and it also received a due pass recommendation. SB 5912 to reinstate the Indigent Defense Task Force was amended to remove legislators from the task force, add members, revise duties and reporting, and adjust staffing and reimbursement provisions; it too was advanced. SB 5855 on law enforcement face coverings drew extensive amendment debate. The committee rejected amendments that would have narrowed mask exceptions, added weather/environmental language, created a private right of action against federal officers, and established a claims account for officers, but adopted the proposed substitute and sent the bill forward on a due pass recommendation. The committee then heard public testimony on SB 6011, which would let Court of Appeals bailiffs conduct threat assessments and access certain criminal history information for Court of Appeals judges and staff, mirroring authority already given to Supreme Court bailiffs. The bill’s sponsor and the acting chief judge for Division I said the change would address increasing threats and allow bailiffs to investigate and refer matters efficiently; there was no opposition testimony. SB 6009, which would make permanent direct-review procedures for certain administrative and land-use decisions, was described as a successful COVID-era process that reduces unnecessary court steps and conserves resources. The sponsor and a Court of Appeals judge supported making the sunset provisions permanent, and testimony was generally favorable. Public hearing also continued on SB 5868, which would add one Superior Court judge each in Skagit and Yakima counties. Court officials, county leaders, and the Administrative Office of the Courts testified that both counties have growing caseloads, trial delays, and backlogs, and that the counties had budgeted their share of the cost. The committee then heard SB 5974, which would add eligibility requirements for sheriffs, police chiefs, and marshals, restrict the use of volunteers and specially commissioned officers, and clarify duties of sheriffs. Supporters argued the bill would improve professionalism, accountability, and public trust, especially in immigrant and survivor communities. Opponents, including several sheriffs, cities, and counties, argued it would undermine local control and voter authority, impose costly background checks, and raise constitutional concerns. Public testimony on SB 5974 closed when time expired, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• . government. government.
• and county government.
• leave Mobile County and go to Baldwin County.
• leave Mobile County and go to Baldwin County.
• </c> nine counties and those nine counties nine counties and those nine counties include<00:18:34.720

Committee: House Mobile County Legislation

Transcript Highlights:

• GOVERNING BODY.
• What it will allow the Orange County local government to do is redirect all of that TDT revenue for property
• We have Leon County, Jefferson, and Madison counties.
• County governments are collecting Ad valorem taxes than they were five years ago, and over that time,
• Broward County.

Bills: HB 118 , HB 388 , HB 114 , HB 205 , HB 2789 , HB 2791 , HB 499 , HB 2960 , HB 3163 , HB 3135 , HB 2427 , HB 1618 , HB 1672 , HB 1722 , HB 1338 , HB 787 , HB 2618 , HB 879 , HB 1126 , HB 4134 , HB 3513 , HB 718 , HB 1536 , HB 1445 , HB 1640 , HB 1893 , HB 1734 , HB 3229 , HB 3306 , HB 1276 , HB 3272 , HB 3276 , HB 3516 , HB 4145 , HB 1585 , HB 4810 , HB 2989 , HB 2558 , HB 3014 , HB 2742 , HB 1695 , HB 29 , HB 125 , HB 145 , HB 171 , HB 255 , HB 50 , HB 363 , HB 116 , HB 491 , HB 1495 , HB 368 , HB 1285 , HB 1905 , HB 2002 , HB 917 , HB 2723 , HB 2067 , HB 1238 , HB 745 , HB 1188 , HB 1606 , HB 2003 , HB 2147 , HB 2355 , HB 2546 , HB 2495 , HB 2818 , HB 2249 , HB 3228 , HB 3240 , HB 1507 , HB 658 , HB 1748 , HB 1851 , HB 1922 , HB 2798 , HB 107 , HB 1587 , HB 3684 , HB 118 , HB 388 , HB 114 , HB 205 , HB 2789 , HB 2791 , HB 499 , HB 2960 , HB 3163 , HB 3135 , HB 2427 , HB 1618 , HB 1672 , HB 1722 , HB 1338 , HB 787 , HB 2618 , HB 879 , HB 1126 , HB 4134 , HB 3513 , HB 718 , HB 1536 , HB 1445 , HB 1640 , HB 1893 , HB 1734 , HB 3229 , HB 3306 , HB 1276 , HB 3272 , HB 3276 , HB 3516 , HB 4145 , HB 1585 , HB 4810 , HB 2989 , HB 2558 , HB 3014 , HB 2742 , HB 1695 , HB 609 , HB 630 , HB 420 , HB 767 , HB 1708 , HB 1404 , HB 2457 , HB 140 , HB 227 , HB 913 , HB 2198 , HB 2763 , HB 1261 , HB 1135 , HB 1318 , HB 2358 , HB 2765 , HB 2735 , HB 3307 , HB 1242 , HB 2842 , HB 333 , HB 201 , HB 694 , HB 2415 , HB 155 , HB 272 , HB 405 , HB 519 , HB 1136 , HB 1275 , HB 1437 , HB 1532 , HB 1675 , HB 1868 , HB 1888 , HB 1990 , HB 2286 , HB 2523 , HB 3129 , HB 3251 , HB 3354 , HB 3479 , HB 3803 , HB 3804 , HB 3805 , HB 3806 , HB 3887 , HB 4163 , HB 4238 , HB 1240 , HB 1842 , HB 2029 , HB 2622 , HB 3255 , HB 654 , HB 4643 , HB 4945 , HB 3611 , HB 3724 , HB 3623 , HB 3810 , HB 4127 , HCR 78 , HCR 12 , SB 767

Transcript Highlights:

• literally every section and every service in the county and every city within the county.
• Alpine County has 1,200 population. Mono County has 12,000. San Mateo County is like 700,000.
• It's pretty clear that these counties in San Mateo County, and my neighboring county in particular, are
• Matt Robinson, on behalf of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, as well as
• For those counties to manage.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for the opportunity to detail the impacts of H.R. 1 on county governments and also discuss
• And it deprives state and county governments of the funding necessary to implement these complex new
• Thank you for the opportunity to detail the impacts of HR1 on county governments and also discuss how
• And it deprives state and county governments of the funding necessary to implement these complex new
• County, and Lake County.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

• The only other thing I'd say back to the local electeds is that in my county, in Jefferson County, in
• Before a local government can hire an outside plaintiff's firm to bring Before a local government can
• But just for a small county like Miller County to be able to rely on, or at least access to, the Attorney
• But just for a small county like Miller County to be able to rely on, or at least access to, the Attorney
• But just for a small county like Miller County to be able to rely on, or at least access to, the Attorney

Committee: House Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1142, which would clarify the Secretary of State’s authority to issue certificates of good standing to series LLCs and make each series searchable on the Secretary of State’s website. The sponsor said the bill was needed to preserve a long-standing practice and keep Missouri business-friendly, and witnesses from the Missouri Chamber and a law firm supported it as a simple clarification. No opposition was presented, and the hearing concluded without a vote in the transcript. The committee then took up House Bill 3347, sponsored by Rep. Murphy, which had two parts: one establishing requirements for political subdivisions entering contingency-fee legal contracts, and another addressing a Kansas City ordinance restricting sales of small liquor bottles in certain areas. Supporters of the legal-contract portion argued that local governments should coordinate with the Attorney General on contingency-fee cases involving statewide issues, citing opioid, PFAS, environmental, and other multi-jurisdictional litigation as examples where attorney fees and fragmented local action created delays and inefficiencies. Opponents, including the Missouri Municipal League, Missouri Association of Counties, and private attorneys, argued the bill would add bureaucracy, delay cases, undermine local control, and potentially freeze out smaller communities; they also raised concerns about vague language, a 45-day review period, and retroactive effects on existing contracts. On the alcohol portion, industry witnesses supported the amendment, saying the Kansas City proposal was discriminatory, unsupported by data, and would hurt retailers and tax revenue. After the hearing, the committee moved into executive session and unanimously voted House Committee Substitute for Senate Bills 907, 1154, and 1272 do pass and do pass with consent, after adopting a technical substitute. The transcript then returned to HB 3347, where testimony continued on both the legal-contract and alcohol provisions, but no final committee vote on HB 3347 appears in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• The city or county, right?
• They can represent from a county representative; they can be anywhere in the county.
• governance structure.
• Being posed by municipalities in the ETJ of counties, excuse me, and counties in unincorporated areas
• But Brazoria County is not quite as fast-growing as Fort County, but is one of the fastest-growing counties

Bills: HB22 , SB250 , SB375 , SB536 , SB845 , SB1633 , SB1944 , SB1957 , SB2081 , SB2137 , SB2262 , SB2299 , SB2419 , SB2452 , SB2522 , SB2549 , SB2594 , SB2605 , SB2631 , SB2639 , SB2675 , SB3029 , SJR60 , HB22 , HB1392 , HB2525

Committee: Senate Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• impacting our counties.
• Thank you for the opportunity to detail the impacts of H.R. 1 on county governments and also discuss
• And it deprives state and county governments of the funding necessary to implement these complex new
• counties currently have.
• County, and Lake County.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the impacts of H.R. 1 on California’s safety net, focusing on Medi-Cal and CalFresh. The chair and vice chair framed the discussion around major federal changes to work requirements, eligibility redeterminations, immigrant eligibility, and financing rules, while noting the state’s own structural budget deficit and the need for a second hearing later in March on county and safety-net impacts. The first panel included the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, the UC Berkeley Labor Center, and the Food Research and Action Center. LAO and Finance described H.R. 1 as driving major enrollment losses and cost shifts. LAO estimated that Medi-Cal work requirements and six-month redeterminations could affect 3.5 million people, with 1 to 2 million potentially disenrolled, while CalFresh changes could subject more than 800,000 people to work requirements and cause over 600,000 to lose food assistance. They also highlighted new ineligibility for certain non-citizens, reduced federal matching for emergency Medi-Cal services, tighter provider tax rules, and higher state and county administrative costs for CalFresh. Finance said the governor’s budget reflects about $1.4 billion in new General Fund costs in 2026-27 and a $2.4 billion reduction in federal funds, with larger out-year impacts and up to 2 million Medi-Cal disenrollments by 2029-30. The UC Berkeley Labor Center projected up to 3 million Californians could lose full-scope Medi-Cal by 2028 when H.R. 1 is combined with state budget changes, though it said the state could limit losses by choosing not to apply some new requirements to state-funded populations and by keeping some immigrants in full-scope state-funded coverage. The Food Research and Action Center argued that CalFresh cuts and time limits would increase hunger, homelessness risk, and health costs, while also hurting local economies and increasing administrative burden. Committee members from both parties questioned the fiscal sustainability of Medi-Cal growth, the 11% CalFresh error rate and possible $2 billion penalty, county indigent care costs, and the effect of work requirements; several Democratic members argued the federal changes and state cuts would disproportionately harm low-income Californians, immigrants, and communities of color, while Republican members emphasized program growth, work incentives, and the need for budget restraint. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to Local Government this morning. We have, wow, we have a packed house.
• I don't want a government property building over the...
• I also encourage a yes vote for the one county that we carved out in the amendment. ...for the one county
• I represent North King County on the Metropolitan King County Council.
• Curtis Diner with the Washington State Association of Counties and the State Association of County Regional

Summary: The committee opened public hearings on House Bill 2141, concerning building codes, and House Bill 2573, concerning community access to food, medicine, and health services, then later took executive action on several bills. HB 2141 would impose a 10-year pause on new state building and energy code updates after the 2024 codes, limit local amendments until the 2036 codes, then move to a six-year update cycle and remove the current energy-code 70% reduction target. Supporters, including the sponsor, builders, local government groups, and some code officials, argued the bill would reduce regulatory churn, lower housing costs, and give builders and local governments more certainty. Opponents, including environmental groups, architects, fire marshals, and code organizations, said the freeze would raise long-term energy costs, undermine safety and climate goals, and delay adoption of new technologies. No action was taken on HB 2141 during the hearing. HB 2573 would require advance notice before grocery stores or pharmacies close in communities that relied on them for planning under the Growth Management Act, add a health and food access goal and a healthy communities element to the GMA, and authorize cities and counties to use zoning, excise taxes, and nuisance fees to discourage long-term vacancies and preserve access to food and medicine. The sponsor and supporters said the bill responds to recent store closures that created food and pharmacy deserts, especially in overburdened communities, and would give local governments tools to prevent blight and protect access to essential services. Opponents from grocery and retail industry groups argued the bill would punish businesses and property owners, create a chilling effect on investment, and unfairly burden independent landlords. The committee heard testimony on HB 2573 but did not take final action in the portion provided. During executive action, the committee reported several bills out with do-pass recommendations. HB 2517, on permitting tools for high-capacity transit projects, passed 4-3 after one proposed amendment was rejected and another was adopted to require property-owner consent before certain permits on property not owned by the transit authority. HB 2588, expanding county ferry district authority beyond passenger-only ferries, passed 4-3. HB 1529, allowing cities to use county resources for road construction and maintenance, passed 6-1. HB 2223, creating a limited exemption for irrigation district directors’ spouses’ contracts, passed unanimously. HB 2006, extending the deadline for certain rural counties to designate industrial land banks, passed unanimously after adoption of an amendment narrowing eligibility and adjusting timing requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• County line.
• , Columbia County line.
• For example, we have looked at Lafayette County. We have looked at Mayo County.
• We have looked at DeSoto County.
• It allows us to go out and help Brevard County, help Lake County with their flooding.

Summary: The committee took up four bills before moving to a broader discussion of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Trust Fund. SB 434, which would prohibit counties from increasing a home’s assessed value because the owner installed wind mitigation measures, was presented as a homeowner protection measure and reported favorably. CS/SB 110, clarifying that certain 98-year-or-longer residential leaseholders remain eligible for the homestead exemption even if the lease ends at death, was also reported favorably without opposition. SB 856, requiring online real estate listing platforms to display estimated ad valorem taxes using prescribed calculation methods and not the current owner’s tax bill, drew supportive testimony from property appraisers, Zillow, and local government groups; members emphasized transparency for buyers, especially first-time homebuyers, and the bill was reported favorably. The committee then spent most of the meeting on SPB 7040, which would recreate and extend the Emergency Preparedness and Response Fund through December 31, 2027. Supporters, including the Division of Emergency Management, argued the fund is needed for hurricanes, flooding, other disasters, and rapid response operations, and said the extension preserves legislative oversight that would otherwise lapse. Opponents from advocacy and policy groups argued the fund has been used too broadly, especially for immigration-related detention and enforcement activities, and criticized the lack of tighter guardrails and transparency. They cited deaths in detention facilities, the use of emergency dollars for non-disaster purposes, and concerns about political favoritism and public accountability. Director Kevin Guthrie testified at length in support of the extension, explaining that the fund is used for natural, man-made, and technological emergencies, that reimbursements from federal and other sources are returned to the fund, and that the state has used it for hurricanes, flooding, civil unrest, international evacuations, and immigration-related operations under Operation Vigilant Sentry. He said the division has sought federal reimbursement for some expenses and that the fund helps the state respond quickly when emergencies arise. Members questioned the size of the fund, the amount spent on immigration-related activities, the status of federal reimbursements, and whether lawmakers should have more oversight or unannounced access to detention facilities. The bill discussion remained ongoing in the portion provided, with no final vote on SPB 7040 shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> representative GEL is in Feed County. representative GEL is in Feed County.
• And right now we have Bullitt County, Jefferson County, and Fayette County, some of our richest school
• Government does not.
• </c> results at the county level. results at the county level.
• </c> can report on behalf of all counties. can report on behalf of all counties.

Summary: The committee met, approved the October 21 minutes, and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal to prohibit the use of tax dollars and public resources to advocate for or against ballot questions, including constitutional amendments. Senator Rawlings and the other presenters argued the current law already bars such advocacy but lacks meaningful enforcement, citing the 2024 school choice amendment campaign and other examples where public officials and school systems allegedly used taxpayer-funded resources to influence voters. They said the bill would add civil and criminal penalties, while preserving First Amendment rights for public employees acting in their personal capacities. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill should be limited to school districts or broadened to cover other public entities, and on how to define terms such as “advocating in impartial terms.” Members raised concerns about possible effects on county and city lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, on legitimate factual explanations by public officials, and on whether the bill could unintentionally restrict needed representation for local governments. The sponsors said the measure was intended to be narrow, would be vetted further, and would not bar individuals from speaking on their own behalf. Several members suggested revisions. Representative Lockett asked that schools and school employees be specifically named, and suggested separating the lobbying restrictions from the ballot-measure provisions into different bills. Representative Layman questioned the meaning of the bill’s language and whether it would cover factual testimony by officials. Representative Heen asked about a Jefferson County example involving legal fees used to challenge petition signatures; counsel said that situation would likely be allowable under the bill as drafted, though some members thought it should be covered. No final vote was taken on BR 25 during this discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• What is not delegated to the federal government, the counties, the locals, the state has priority.
• There have been examples in Mojave County, Pima County, and now in Navajo County.
• County Sheriff's Posse.
• forces within the county.
• Unfortunately, every county in Arizona, when it comes to drugs, is a border county.

Summary: The committee heard several public safety measures. HCR 2059, a resolution reaffirming support for county sheriffs and recognizing their constitutional authority, drew debate over language describing sheriffs’ authority as “supreme” or “supreme constitutional.” Supporters said it was a tribute to sheriffs’ work, especially in rural areas, while opponents objected to the phrasing as tied to fringe legal theories. The resolution passed with a do-pass recommendation, 8-3. HB 2811 was presented as closing a gap in Arizona law by making interference with a lawful arrest involving violence or threats of violence a felony under obstructing governmental operations. Supporters said it would clarify the law and align it more closely with federal standards; opponents argued the conduct was already covered by existing resisting-arrest and hindering statutes and that the bill was duplicative and confusing. The bill received a do-pass recommendation, 8-4. HB 4129 would create a Department of Public Safety mental health and wellness program for law enforcement officers and appropriate $15 million for confidential counseling, peer support, family counseling, telehealth, and related services, with some funding reserved for smaller agencies. The sponsor and supporters emphasized officer trauma and suicide prevention, while opponents said similar services already exist and raised cost concerns. Before a final vote, the sponsor requested the bill be held for further work, and the committee agreed. The committee also advanced HB 2270, which expands protections for county seals, logos, insignia, and related identifiers and gives sheriffs exclusive authority over naming and dissolving posses. Sheriffs and county officials said the bill was needed after disputes over posse names and branding; critics warned the language was too broad and could raise First Amendment and due process concerns. The bill passed 12-1. HB 2416, appropriating $20 million for local border support and law enforcement costs related to drug trafficking, smuggling, prosecution, detention, and equipment, also passed after testimony both for and against the funding, 7-5. HB 4018, a strike-everything amendment clarifying sheriffs’ authority over volunteer posses and reserves, passed 10-0 after testimony from sheriffs’ office staff and a member of the public who opposed expanded use of armed volunteers. HB 2253, barring retaliation against employees who testify in law-enforcement disciplinary appeal proceedings, passed unanimously after an amendment removed language voiding restrictive policies. The committee then began hearing HB 4044, which would create a Public Safety Parity Fund using investment earnings from the state rainy day fund to pay DPS and corrections salaries, with the sponsor saying he intended to remove the forfeiture component before floor consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• A county can raise, like they did in Harris County, they raised $200 back up, but the appraisal...
• And we've talked about Travis County, I couldn't sit here and not, you know, it's Tarrant County days
• I can't not brag on Tarrant County in that as opposed to seeing Harris County raised their rates.
• Even if they don't want to work with us like they do in Tarrant County, fourth largest county in the
• County in my district now and Harris County as well and those owners didn't see these savings.

Bills: SJR2 , SB4 , SJR36 , SJR2 , SB4 , SJR1 , SJR5 , SB9 , SB40 , SJR2 , SB4 , SR98 , SJR40 , SJR41 , SJR42 , SJR43 , SJR44 , SJR45 , SJR46 , SJR47 , SCR13 , SB6 , SB13 , SB21 , SB826 , SB827 , SB828 , SB829 , SB830 , SB831 , SB832 , SB833 , SB834 , SB835 , SB836 , SB837 , SB838 , SB839 , SB840 , SB841 , SB842 , SB843 , SB844 , SB845 , SB846 , SB847 , SB848 , SB849 , SB850 , SB851 , SB853 , SB854 , SB855 , SB856 , SB857 , SB858 , SB859 , SB860 , SB861 , SB862 , SB863 , SB864 , SB865 , SB866 , SB867 , SB868 , SB869 , SB870 , SB871 , SB872 , SB873 , SB874 , SB875 , SB876 , SB877 , SB878 , SB879 , SB880 , SB881 , SB882 , SB883 , SB884 , SB885 , SB886 , SB887 , SB888 , SB889 , SB890 , SB891 , SB892 , SB893 , SB894 , SB895 , SB896 , SB897 , SB898 , SB899 , SB900 , SB901 , SB902 , SB903 , SB904 , SB905 , SB906 , SB907 , SB908 , SB909 , SB910 , SB911 , SB912 , SB913 , SB914 , SB915 , SB916 , SB917 , SB918 , SB919 , SB920 , SB921 , SB922 , SB923 , SB924 , SB925 , SB926 , SB927 , SB928 , SB929 , SB930 , SB931 , SB932 , SB933 , SB934 , SB935 , SB936 , SB937 , SB938 , SB939 , SB940 , SB941 , SB942 , SB943 , SB944 , SB945 , SB946 , SB947 , SB948 , SB949 , SB950 , SB951 , SB952 , SB953 , SB954 , SB955 , SB956 , SB957 , SB958 , SB959 , SB960 , SB961 , SB962 , SB963 , SB964 , SB965 , SB966 , SB967 , SB968 , SB969 , SB970 , SB971 , SB972 , SB973 , SB974 , SB975 , SB976 , SB977 , SB978 , SB979 , SB980 , SB981 , SB982 , SB983 , SB984 , SB985 , SB986 , SB987 , SB988 , SB989 , SB990 , SB991 , SB992 , SB993 , SB994 , SB995 , SB996 , SB997 , SB998 , SB999 , SB1000 , SJR40 , SJR41 , SJR42 , SJR43 , SJR44 , SJR45 , SJR46 , SJR47 , SCR13 , SB6 , SB13 , SB21 , SB826 , SB827 , SB828 , SB829 , SB830 , SB831 , SB832 , SB833 , SB834 , SB835 , SB836 , SB837 , SB838 , SB839 , SB840 , SB841 , SB842 , SB843 , SB844 , SB845 , SB846 , SB847 , SB848 , SB849 , SB850 , SB851 , SB853 , SB854 , SB855 , SB856 , SB857 , SB858 , SB859 , SB860 , SB861 , SB862 , SB863 , SB864 , SB865 , SB866 , SB867 , SB868 , SB869 , SB870 , SB871 , SB872 , SB873 , SB874 , SB875 , SB876 , SB877 , SB878 , SB879 , SB880 , SB881 , SB882 , SB883 , SB884 , SB885 , SB886 , SB887 , SB888 , SB889 , SB890 , SB891 , SB892 , SB893 , SB894 , SB895 , SB896 , SB897 , SB898 , SB899 , SB900 , SB901 , SB902 , SB903 , SB904 , SB905 , SB906 , SB907 , SB908 , SB909 , SB910 , SB911 , SB912 , SB913 , SB914 , SB915 , SB916 , SB917 , SB918 , SB919 , SB920 , SB921 , SB922 , SB923 , SB924 , SB925 , SB926 , SB927 , SB928 , SB929 , SB930 , SB931 , SB932 , SB933 , SB934 , SB935 , SB936 , SB937 , SB938 , SB939 , SB940 , SB941 , SB942 , SB943 , SB944 , SB945 , SB946 , SB947 , SB948 , SB949 , SB950 , SB951 , SB952 , SB953 , SB954 , SB955 , SB956 , SB957 , SB958 , SB959 , SB960 , SB961 , SB962 , SB963 , SB964 , SB965 , SB966 , SB967 , SB968 , SB969 , SB970 , SB971 , SB972 , SB973 , SB974 , SB975 , SB976 , SB977 , SB978 , SB979 , SB980 , SB981 , SB982 , SB983 , SB984 , SB985 , SB986 , SB987 , SB988 , SB989 , SB990 , SB991 , SB992 , SB993 , SB994 , SB995 , SB996 , SB997 , SB998 , SB999 , SB1000

Transcript Highlights:

• Your first and second class counties are your large counties.
• Third-class counties are most of your smaller counties, and they have fourth-class counties.
• county.
• of Pettis County.
• We're a third-class county. We have a township form of government.

Committees: House Local Government , House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, a lot of county discretion, so it varies by county.
• County.
• We've got, you know, a smaller county, a medium-sized county, and a large county here.
• The federal government is the federal government, and the state government is not.
• migrating county to county.

Summary: The hearing focused on the expected health coverage losses tied to H.R. 1, the resulting pressure on California’s county indigent care systems, and what data and policy changes the Legislature may need before the next budget cycle. Chair Hart and Assemblymember Addis framed the issue as a major rollback in coverage that could leave more Californians uninsured and push more people into county safety-net programs. Members repeatedly emphasized the need for baseline, county-by-county data on eligibility, benefits, caseloads, and funding before making larger structural decisions. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained the history of county indigent care under Welfare and Institutions Code 17000, the shift in funding through 1991 realignment, and the later redirection of funds to CalWORKs. LAO said county programs vary widely in scope and eligibility, that current realignment funding does not automatically rise with demand, and that the Legislature faces tradeoffs if it changes the funding structure. Administration witnesses from Finance and DHCS projected large Medi-Cal and Covered California enrollment losses, with DHCS estimating more than 1 million Medi-Cal members could eventually lose coverage under work requirements and redeterminations, and noting that a new federal rule could make exemptions more restrictive. Officials also said there is no single statewide real-time data system for uninsured or indigent care populations, though some hospital and utilization data exists with significant lags. County representatives from Santa Barbara, San Diego, and Tulare described how their indigent care programs are being rebuilt or strained after years of low demand. They warned that many newly uninsured residents will need only basic, emergency-oriented care under county programs, not the preventive and continuous care available through Medi-Cal, and said that without new state support counties may have to divert funds from public health or reduce other services. Several counties asked for bridge funding, technical statutory changes, and flexibility to adjust realignment methodology. The California Health Care Foundation closed by arguing that the problem is statewide and needs a statewide solution rather than a patchwork county response.

Transcript Highlights:

• Of course, the city or county, the local government would have to defend themselves.
• involved with the local governments.
• cars and vehicles, or whether other state government facilities or local government were using their
• , Erath County, and many of my counties.
• I can't remember the name of the county, Bastrop County, I think it is.

Bills: HCR35 , SJR59 , SJR84 , SCR30 , SB127 , SB317 , SB324 , SB457 , SB506 , SB511 , SB529 , SB547 , SB584 , SB619 , SB636 , SB646 , SB659 , SB715 , SB732 , SB735 , SB771 , SB784 , SB800 , SB801 , SB904 , SB1026 , SB1049 , SB1065 , SB1181 , SB1224 , SB1250 , SB1383 , SB1467 , SB1524 , SB1528 , SB1531 , SB1568 , SB1585 , SB1640 , SB1681 , SB1754 , SB1757 , SB1777 , SB1972 , SB1980 , SB2007 , SB2041 , SB2046 , SB2050 , SB2055 , SB2069 , SB2080 , SB2119 , SB2138 , SB2139 , SB2154 , SB2201 , SB2225 , SB2268 , SB2306 , SB2308 , SB2310 , SB2330 , SB2366 , SB2375 , SB2392 , SB2401 , SB2422 , SB2480 , SB2514 , SB2530 , SB2533 , SB2543 , SB2544 , SB2589 , SB2610 , SB2615 , SB2623 , SB2660 , SB2662 , SB2693 , SB2695 , SB2707 , SB2722 , SB2742 , SB2753 , SB2807 , SB2843 , SB2844 , SB2858 , SB2880 , SB2885 , SB2891 , SB2925 , SB2938 , SB2986 , SJR3 , SJR18 , SB5 , SB914 , SB963 , SB1197 , SB1415 , SB1437 , SB1786 , SB326 , SB767 , SB769 , SB783 , SB1035 , SB1271 , SB1619 , SB1637 , SB1806 , SB1 , SB260 , HB135 , HB 1109 , HCR35 , HCR64 , SJR36 , SJR50 , SJR63 , SJR84 , SJR59 , SCR12 , SCR39 , SCR48 , SCR19 , SCR30 , SCR3 , SB2023 , SB619 , SB2742 , SB646 , SB1026 , SB2880 , SB62 , SB666 , SB847 , SB284 , SB854 , SB1073 , SB810 , SB1505 , SB583 , SB1502 , SB507 , SB1434 , SB1376 , SB1585 , SB1772 , SB2016 , SB1163 , SB1122 , SB731 , SB397 , SB508 , SB1436 , SB287 , SB261 , SB1882 , SB393 , SB1791 , SB529 , SB209 , SB2429 , SB1999 , SB511 , SB2309 , SB510 , SB584 , SB1085 , SB2046 , SB1975 , SB2717 , SB1262 , SB1524 , SB636 , SB2056 , SB884 , SB517 , SB1200 , SB1845 , SB1863 , SB2681 , SB2200 , SB2199 , SB1757 , SB2050 , SB2458 , SB2201 , SB2660 , SB2662 , SB1065 , SB801 , SB2533 , SB3014 , SB3013 , SB758 , SB1721 , SB2366 , SB1013 , SB2797 , SB2383 , SB1754 , SB2119 , SB2448 , SB1777 , SB1283 , SB2392 , SB2076 , SB2786 , SB2876 , SB2284 , SB2225 , SB1540 , SB2929 , SB1972 , SB2540 , SB2595 , SB2217 , SB715 , SB2330 , SB1383 , SB500 , SB1640 , SB2001 , SB2080 , SB506 , SB2514 , SB2753 , SB2398 , SB1241 , SB2927 , SB2173 , SB2538 , SB898 , SB1449 , SB2529 , SB1531 , SB2846 , SB2476 , SB986 , SB1181 , SB2075 , SB2154 , SB2864 , SB1359 , SB2386 , SB771 , SB2844 , SB2550 , SB1351 , SB1423 , SB1931 , SB2245 , SB2589 , SB2707 , SB2807 , SB410 , SB659 , SB2776 , SB2693 , SB2580 , SB1980 , SB1886 , SB1234 , SB739 , SB456 , SB127 , SB1666 , SB2843 , SB2801 , SB800 , SB2055 , SB784 , SB2986 , SB735 , SB1012 , SB324 , SB2926 , SB2938 , SB2007 , SB2138 , SB1242 , SB2615 , SB1049 , SB2310 , SB1224 , SB2972 , SB1568 , SB2841 , SB2885 , SB3016 , SB2858 , SB2610 , SB2139 , SB1856 , SB2035 , SB2308 , SB2306 , SB2041 , SB1528 , SB1681 , SB1141 , SB2401 , SB2530 , SB2375 , SB547 , SB1266 , SB1373 , SB1467 , SB2069 , SB2269 , SB2480 , SB2544 , SB672 , SB904 , SB2695 , SB2891 , SB2422 , SB2543 , SB1854 , SB317 , SB2539 , SB2532 , SB2925 , SB1250 , SB2082 , SB2203 , SB457 , SB2357 , SB2721 , SB243 , SB1285 , SB2568 , SB1959 , SB1442 , SB1454 , SB2520 , SB2541 , SB1708 , SB1237 , SB1844 , SB1586 , HB1392 , HB22 , SB1551 , SB3039 , SB2819 , SB66 , SB629 , SB1015 , SB2342 , SB2903 , SB2933 , SB1965 , SB2477 , SB3029 , SB2605 , SB2419 , SB1957 , SB375 , SB250 , SB777 , SB628 , SB2523 , SB2367 , SB2703 , SB2608 , SB2778 , SB3044 , SB2965 , SB2521 , SB865