Transcript Highlights:

• 5, we've got subdivision 2, on line 5, we've got three<00:24:06.000> members<00:24:06.360>
• separate subset that is the front lines separate subset that is the front lines and<00:24:28.920
• , when there are general fund surplus dollars.
• um, when there are general fund surplus um, when there are general fund surplus<00:39:06.880> dollars
• This would add an surplus dollars.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have, you know, obviously we have the surplus, et cetera, et cetera.
• Four years ago, these numbers were more in line with reality.
• We had $574 million in bonding capacity added, plus 18.9% of surplus.
• We're giving you a starting point of $18 million plus some surplus money.
• And you did use half of the surplus cash, and you've left half the surplus cash for us to use as well

Bills: HB2, HB3, HB799, HB1039

Keywords: capital outlay, budget, infrastructure, appropriation, general obligation bonds, bond authorization, capital improvement, financial management, state treasury, boiler safety, inspection, licensing, state fire marshal, operating certificate, regulations, local sales tax, local use tax, sales and use tax, tax audit, local collector

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a surplus, a modest surplus, and I hope that we are very, very frugal in the session.
• We have a surplus,<00:11:53.279> a<00:11:53.519> modest<00:11:53.920> surplus,<00
• :11:54.800> and<00:11:55.040> I<00:11:55.200> hope surplus, a modest surplus, and
• I hope surplus, a modest surplus, and I hope that<00:11:55.760> we<00:11:56.399> are<00
• Um along those lines bipartisanly.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The program previewed the Minnesota Senate’s new session and featured interviews with Majority Leader Erin Murphy and Minority Leader Mark Johnson. Murphy said the DFL will focus on Capitol security, gun violence prevention, a supplemental budget, bonding/infrastructure, and continued anti-fraud work. She tied the session’s priorities to recent political violence and federal actions in Minnesota, and said she is working on legislation requiring federal agents to follow Minnesota’s rendering-aid law. She also said the Senate will pursue a bonding bill, likely a small supplemental budget bill, and additional fraud-related measures, including an independent inspector general proposal that stalled in the House. Murphy said the state’s November forecast showed a modest surplus but warned that federal policy changes could worsen the out-year budget outlook. She said the Senate would remain committed to balancing the budget and would not use infrastructure as leverage in negotiations. On fraud, she said the caucus has already passed multiple bills since 2023 and wants stronger enforcement, while expressing concern about prosecutorial capacity. She also emphasized a desire for bipartisan cooperation despite an election year and recent tragedy, saying senators should keep debates focused on policy and maintain working relationships. Johnson said Senate Republicans will emphasize fraud, affordability, infrastructure, and a broader approach to safety that includes mental health, school safety, and law enforcement training and equipment. He said the Senate has limited jurisdiction over the increased federal presence in Minnesota but can work on areas where bipartisan agreement is possible. He also said the session will be a bonding year, with attention to roads, bridges, water systems, and other capital projects, and noted that the governor’s proposed $97 million bonding bill is far below the roughly $6.5 billion in requests. On the budget, he said the legislature may have limited room to address the projected deficit this session, and he warned that retirements are changing the Senate’s makeup while also creating opportunities for new members and ideas.

Transcript Highlights:

• The surplus lines market, on the other hand, is almost the exact opposite.
• In this case, in the surplus lines market, you have an entirely different mechanism in place.
• In the surplus lines space, there is actually almost no capping of fees whatsoever.
• In the surplus lines space, it was actually deregulated a number of years ago by the Legislature, and
• And number two, 40% of the commercial market is already written by surplus lines right now, 40%.

Bills: S0302, S0394, S0480, S0546, S0636, S0774, S0796, S1028, S1050, S1066, S1120, S1230, S1288, S1682

Keywords: cybersecurity, information technology, data management, local government compliance, cloud services, state agency oversight, integrated governance, conservation lands, land exchange, state-owned land, Acquisition and Restoration Council, Florida water management, environmental protection, beach management, beach erosion, beach nourishment, coastal resilience, shoreline protection, critical erosion, critically eroded beach

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several bills, beginning with CS/SB 796, which would create Veterinary Professional Associates as a new supervised veterinary role, expand telehealth prescription timeframes, and set training and scope limits. Supporters said it would improve access to care, lower costs, and create a career path, while opponents argued the proposal lacked a clear regulatory framework, could create liability and federal-law conflicts, and would not address the real shortage in rural large-animal practice. After debate, the committee reported the bill favorably. Members also heard and favorably reported SB 1682 on local authority over derelict and abandoned vessels, CS/SB 1028 on a commercial Citizens clearinghouse for property insurance, SB 394 on exempting certain reinsurance underwriting managers from licensing, SB 636 on beach management and erosion designations, CS/SB 546 on public notice for conservation land sales or exchanges, CS/SB 302 on Biscayne Bay nature-based solutions and related coastal resiliency provisions, SB 1050 on pharmacy choice for pet medications, and SB 774 extending workers’ compensation benefits to 911 public safety telecommunicators for mental and nervous injuries. Testimony on these bills generally focused on access, regulatory clarity, environmental protection, or workforce support, with some concerns raised on insurance consumer protections and beach-management language. Senator Harrell’s bills were also taken up and reported favorably: CS/SB 480, a major overhaul of state IT governance creating DIGIT and new procurement, reporting, and workforce structures; CS/SB 1230, restricting PFAS-containing firefighting foam and adding testing, inventory, and disposal requirements; and CS/SB 1288, a naming bill designating the Andrew Red Harris Shoal and requiring markers. Finally, the committee heard extensive testimony on SB 1066 regarding restoration of the Oklawaha/Rodman system, with supporters emphasizing ecological restoration, flood-risk reduction, and economic benefits, and opponents warning about local impacts, water quality, and the loss of a world-class fishery. The transcript ends during testimony on that bill, before final action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• and it has a surplus is adequate surplus and it has a scenario<00:27:07.600> at<00:27:07.840>
• And then the question is: is your surplus adequate? And surplus doesn't mean more than you need.
• And then the question is: is your surplus adequate? And surplus doesn't mean more than you need.
• I would grant you that under this one line item from your 22 items under that line item, yet is not the
• hearings and things along those lines. hearings and things along those lines.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee took up the pooled risk management program bill and reviewed a new amendment drafted with input from the Insurance Department and Legislative Services. Department witnesses explained that the proposal would move oversight of pooled risk management programs from the Secretary of State’s office to the Insurance Department, add a licensure requirement, preserve the programs’ non-insurer status, and exempt them from third-party administrator licensure. They also described a series of solvency tools in the draft, including financial reporting, risk-based capital standards, minimum capitalization, investment limits, commissioner examination and enforcement authority, rulemaking authority, merger and affiliate-transaction review, confidentiality protections, and a separability clause. A major theme of the discussion was that pooled risk management programs differ from commercial insurers because the risk remains with the member local governments rather than being backed by a state guarantee fund. Witnesses said the bill is designed to emphasize solvency over return of premium and to give the Insurance Department a regulatory “toolbox” to prevent insolvency, including a proposed $5 million excess or stop-loss coverage benchmark, optional accessible policies, and a requirement that boards vote on dividends or premium returns when capital exceeds 600% of risk-based capital. Members questioned how this approach differed from the original Secretary of State bill and whether assessments on towns would still be possible; the department responded that the new framework would allow more flexible oversight and alternatives to immediate court action. The committee also discussed why the statute should continue to say the programs are not insurers, with the department explaining that this preserves their autonomy and avoids applying unrelated insurance laws and premium taxes. Members asked about the department’s workload and were told the department believed it could absorb the new duties without additional funding. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'll quickly go through the surplus statement.
• statement we'll go make sure surplus statement we'll go make sure that<00:04:39.160> we<00:04
• I'll quickly go through the Surplus I'll quickly go through the Surplus statement<00:04:48.759><
• It includes surplus statements. You present that to the entire House next Tuesday.
• It includes surplus statements. You present that to the entire House next Tuesday.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Committee met for final approval of HB 1 and HB 2, with legislative budget staff Michael Kain reviewing the final amendment documents and surplus statements. Kain explained that HB 1474H and HB 1484H incorporated the committee’s prior votes and the Governor’s recommended sections, and he walked through the budget math for the general fund, education trust fund, Highway Fund, and Fish and Game Fund. He said the committee’s proposal remained balanced overall, though the current-year general fund showed a projected deficit that HB 2 would address by allowing a possible rainy day fund transfer if needed. He also noted that the committee’s revenue estimates were below the Governor’s, requiring reductions and adjustments to appropriations and lapse assumptions. Members discussed the rainy day fund provisions, including a section in HB 2 that suspends existing restrictions so a transfer can be made if the deficit materializes. Kain said the committee’s approach differed from the Governor’s because the state was not below the overall revenue plan, and the fiscal committee would retain a role in determining any transfer. He also summarized that the Highway Fund would end with about a $13 million balance and Fish and Game with about $3 million, both without additional general fund support. The committee then adopted two amendments to HB 2 unanimously: Amendment 1473H, a technical cleanup to the Group 2 retirement seven-year rule, and Amendment 1482H, a technical correction to the recreational services language. Amendment 1484H, which incorporated those changes into HB 2, was adopted on a 14-1 vote after minority members objected to the bill’s broader cuts and policy changes, including reductions to state agencies, health and human services, and education-related provisions. The committee also adopted Amendment 1474H to HB 1A on a 14-1 vote after similar debate over budget reductions, vacancies, university funding, and school spending limits. Finally, the committee voted 14-1 to report HB 1A and HB 2 as amended as ought to pass, with the minority voting no and the committee planning a full House presentation the following week.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's built through the lines of credit, the $574 million, and other means of finance.
• We have, you know, obviously we have the surplus, et cetera, et cetera.
• Four years ago, these numbers were more in line with reality.
• We had $574 million in bonding capacity added, plus 18.9% of surplus.
• And you did use half of the surplus cash, and you've left half the surplus cash for us to use as well

Summary: The Senate Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs met on May 19, 2026, established a quorum, approved the May 11 minutes, and then took up several House bills. House Bill 1039, presented by Rep. DeSotel, would add taxpayer protections in local sales tax audits by requiring clear notice that waiving prescription is voluntary, requiring a written request identifying records sought before an estimated assessment, and allowing mutual agreements to suspend interest and penalties during an audit. The committee had no opposition and reported the bill favorably. House Bill 799, handled by the State Fire Marshal’s office, would move boiler inspections into the Fire Marshal’s office and allow licensed industry inspectors to perform them, with the stated goal of improving efficiency because current staffing only covers about 20% of inspections; it was also reported favorably without objection. The committee then spent most of the meeting on House Bill 2, the capital outlay bill, with Chairman Bacala explaining that the House had worked with the Division of Administration and Facility Planning and Control to find about $50 million in savings through cash-flow adjustments, under-budget bids, over-appropriations, and bundled-project savings. He argued the bill has grown beyond a true five-year plan and that some prior funding is not transparent because money placed in projects in earlier years no longer appears in later versions of the bill. Division officials said the savings would help address deferred maintenance, especially in higher education, and that Priority 2 projects are used to absorb additional funds if more savings are found later in the year. Senator Luneau asked about dormant projects and the process for removing or reallocating funds from projects with no recent expenditures; officials said such removals must go through the Bond Commission and that they are considering ways to improve the process. Bacala then offered amendments to HB 2, saying they kept Priority 1 fully funded, added about $54 million in Priority 2 projects, and included a large Priority 5 list of member requests. The committee adopted the amendment set without objection and then reported HB 2 as amended favorably. The committee also reported House Bill 3 favorably; Bacala described it as a housekeeping measure that provides bonding capacity to move HB 2 forward. Finally, the committee granted staff authority to make technical changes to the reported bills and adjourned on Senator Lambert’s motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• As an example, just a few years ago, we went from a $97.5 billion surplus to a $45 billion shortfall.
• But the $98 billion surplus, we didn't pay off $20 billion. And Same question again.
• But the $98 billion surplus, we didn't pay off $20 billion.
• And 2022, when we had that big $97.5 billion surplus, was an example of that.
• Do you consider that an expenditure, or do you consider that above the line?

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight heard ACA 20, the Safe for California Futures Act, a constitutional amendment to strengthen the state’s Budget Stabilization Account (rainy day fund). The authors, Assembly Members Gabriel and Valencia, said the measure would raise the reserve cap from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues, change how reserve deposits are treated under the Gann limit so deposits would not count against the spending cap until withdrawn, and update eligible debt repayments to include items such as budget loans, Proposition 98 settle-up obligations, and unemployment insurance debt. They emphasized that the proposal was intended to protect schools and core public services and to help California better withstand revenue volatility and future downturns. Committee discussion focused heavily on the technical effects of the measure, especially its interaction with Proposition 98 and the Gann limit. LAO and Department of Finance staff explained that Prop. 98 funding would not be changed directly, that the reserve deposits would be treated as exclusions from the appropriations limit, and that withdrawals would count when spent. Members asked about current reserve levels, mandatory deposits, and whether the measure would create more room for discretionary spending; supporters argued it would simply allow the state to save more in good years, while one member expressed concern that it could function as a slush fund and expand spending opportunities. Several members cited recent budget volatility, record revenues, and the need for stronger reserves, while others stressed that the measure should be understood as a future-oriented savings reform rather than a response to this year’s budget choices. Public testimony was uniformly supportive. California Forward, Elevate California, and the California Chamber of Commerce all backed the proposal, with the Chamber noting support for the policy and highlighting the importance of addressing unemployment insurance debt for small businesses. The chair concluded by thanking the authors, staff, and witnesses, and said ACA 20 was expected to move to the Assembly floor the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• They made it 44%, even more than the governor, and it left us with a big surplus that we couldn't use
• it starts to House Bill 2 and surplus it starts to House Bill 2 and surplus statement<01:01:57.359
• you the next three pages are the Surplus you the next three pages are the Surplus statements<01:
• on line 13, and you can see how that plays into the overall balancing of the Highway Fund.
• eight you'll see that reflected on line eight you'll see that reflected on line number<01:05:52.640

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Division II work session considered several amendments to HB 2. The first two items were rejected: a proposal to add a new “Lakes” license plate with proceeds to the cyanobacteria fund failed 7-8, and Amendment 1040, which would have imposed a 5% administrative fee on certain dedicated funds to raise general fund revenue, failed 4-5. Representative Maguire explained the fee would apply only to new revenue going forward and would not change existing fund balances; he also described exemptions for federal funds, bequests, and other special cases. Representative Murray questioned the consistency of the approach and who currently pays administrative costs, while Maguire said the charges are often handled case-by-case by agencies or the treasurer. The committee then revisited revenue distribution changes in HB 2. Members first reconsidered and reversed prior acceptance of sections affecting the Education Trust Fund, then adopted Amendment 1381H, which changes the distribution of business profits tax and business enterprise tax revenue, along with related sections, to shift more money to the General Fund. Supporters argued the change was needed to address revenue shortfalls and to align with historical distributions; opponents said it reduced support for education. The reconsideration motion passed 7-3, and the amendment itself passed 5-3. The committee also adopted Amendment 1413H, incorporating the language of HB 741 on open enrollment and student attendance in public schools. Supporters said it was House policy and had sufficient policy and fiscal impact to belong in HB 2; opponents noted the underlying bill had been controversial and passed the House by a relatively close margin. Finally, the committee considered a USNH budget reduction proposal that would cut the University System of New Hampshire by $25 million per year net. Supporters said the cut was necessary to balance the budget and that K-12 obligations had to take priority, while opponents argued the cut would harm workforce development, the state economy, and student retention. The transcript cuts off during extended debate, and no final vote on the USNH item is shown in the provided text.

Transcript Highlights:

• savings we can pick up on the surplus savings we can pick up on the surplus statement<00:45:32.079
• Since you have a surplus statements.
• surplus surplus statement,<01:13:56.080> okay?
• So, that surplus statement I I Okay.
• And you know, so that surplus things.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not a surplus if you haven't paid your bills yet.
• You know, set up that line of questioning earlier with Director Lange, right?
• But this surplus is here now. We're here now.
• We've known about the surplus since at least January. to the taxpayers.
• We've known about the surplus since at least January.

Keywords: 970, all

Transcript Highlights:

• lines insurance.
• **Representative Rizo:** Six lines, and those lines remain in our. Further questions? Debate?
• I am trying to decipher on lines, the lines regarding letting Schools of Hope go anywhere, was that ever
• or surplus.
• The language on lines 572 to 582.

Bills: HJR 138, HB 42, HB 104, HB 129, HB 677, HB 426, HB 668, HB 1699, HB 2017, HB 2128, HB 2038, HB 3783, HB 3717, HB 2316, HB 3686, HB 2563, HB 3883, HB 4021, HB 2788, HB 2663, HB 3305, HB 3173, HB 3474, HB 1105, HB 3531, HB 3490, HB 3597, HB 1295, HB 3512, HB 3010, HB 3112, HB 4215, HB 3223, HB 3464, HB 3120, HB 4214, HB 4511, HB 3704, HB 4081, HB 4783, HB 4063, HB 2783, HB 4937, HB 5085, HB 2510, HB 3426, HB 4361, HB 1169, HB 2516, HB 2347, HB 4034, HB 4700, HB 3560, HB 5150, HB 3860, HB 3146, HB 3924, HCR 98, HCR 92, HB 1520, HB 1545, HB 5265, HB 1887, HB 1914, HB 2402, HB 2306, HB 2350, HB 3000, HB 3237, HB 3326, HB 3211, HB 1056, HB 2081, HB 2187, HB 3092, HB 3308, HB 3526, HB 3750, HB 4219, HB 4230, HB 4290, HB 5238, HB 4804, HB 4749, HB 245, HB 1465, HB 294, HB 793, HB 809, HB 3928, HB 334, HB 2037, HB 1973, HB 285, HB 4341, HB 1043, HB 1234, HB 1193, HB 1729, HB 2498, HB 1314, HB 1353, HB 3960, HB 3923, HB 2221, HB 2517, HB 2518, HB 2213, HB 5092, HB 3748, HB 5246, HB 4344, HB 1482, HB 4044, HB 2702, HB 4264, HB 2807, HB 2898, HB 3181, HB 3250, HB 2091, HB 2115, HB 2542, HB 2768, HB 3349, HB 4406, HB 1593, HB 1899, HB 3133, HB 3133, HB 4960, HB 3214, HB 2145, HB 1201, HB 5061, SB 29, SB 879, SB 65, SB 1745, SB 412, SB 412, SB 1746, SB 1238, SB 1341, SB 522, SB 1532, SB 1378, SB 1062, SB 2066, SB 1963, SB 2204, SB 1366, SB 2077, SB 1967, SB 1151, HB 1618, HB 2156, HB 2615, HB 2615, HB 2349, HB 1926, HB 569, HB 1762, HB 38, HJR 138, HB 42, HB 104, HB 104, HB 129, HB 677, HB 426, HB 668, HB 1699, HB 2017, HB 2128, HB 2038, HB 3783, HB 3717, HB 2316, HB 3686, HB 2563, HB 3883, HB 4021, HB 2788, HB 2663, HB 2663, HB 3305, HB 3173, HB 3474, HB 1105, HB 3531, HB 3531, HB 3490, HB 3490, HB 3597, HB 1295, HB 3512, HB 3010, HB 3112, HB 4215, HB 3223, HB 3223, HB 3464, HB 3120, HB 4214, HB 4511, HB 3704, HB 4081, HB 4783, HB 4063, HB 2783, HB 4937, HB 5085, HB 2510, HB 3426, HB 4361, HB 1169, HB 2516, HB 2347, HB 4034, HB 4700, HB 3560, HB 5150, HB 3860, HB 3146, HB 3924, HCR 98, HCR 92

Keywords: carbon tax, carbon emissions, greenhouse gas, climate policy, fuel tax, emissions tax, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, tax limitation, environmental tax, fossil fuels, energy policy, legislative taxing authority, ballot proposition, constitutional amendment, higher education, funding, financial allocation, state budget, Texas A&M University

Transcript Highlights:

• included in each proposal on line three, and the carry-forward balance on line four.
• included in each proposal on line three, and the carry-forward balance on line four.
• included in each proposal on line three, and the carry-forward balance on line four.
• included in each proposal on line three, and the carry-forward balance on line four.
• It's on line side.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Higher Education Conference Committee reviewed differences among the Governor’s, House, and Senate proposals for state grant parameter changes and their effects on state grant spending, North Star Promise spending, and average student awards. Nonpartisan staff explained that the proposals use different combinations of parameter changes, with the Governor’s and Senate plans modeled to avoid or minimize rationing, while the House plan would require rationing to balance the program. Staff reported projected biennium balances of a positive $29.836 million for the Governor’s proposal, a negative $60.758 million for the House proposal without rationing, a positive $994,000 for the House proposal with rationing, and a positive $3.623 million for the Senate proposal; North Star Promise balances also varied, with the Senate showing a positive balance and the Governor and House with rationing showing negative balances. Staff also said the Senate proposal would extend availability of the state grant appropriation and suspend surplus procedures through fiscal year 2029, allowing the balance to carry forward. The committee then focused on the House-only tuition and fee cap provision, which would limit the tuition recognized for state grant purposes for four-year programs to the University of Minnesota Twin Cities level, with 1% annual increases in fiscal years 2026 and 2027. House members said the cap was intended to address rising tuition, especially at the University of Minnesota, and to produce savings in the state grant program. The governor’s office confirmed the provision was not included in the Governor’s bill. Representatives from the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Private College Council opposed the cap, arguing it would reduce awards for low-income students and shift costs to students rather than address underlying tuition pressures; they also said it could discourage enrollment at higher-cost institutions. Supporters from Minnesota State argued the cap would improve fairness because students at lower-tuition institutions are effectively capped lower, while students at more expensive institutions receive larger awards, and they said the legislature should intervene in a variable that has grown substantially over time. Committee members questioned how the cap would work and whether it was tied to the Twin Cities campus rate. Testifiers clarified that the state grant formula is tied to the University of Minnesota level, but because Minnesota State institutions are below that level, the cap effectively limits their students to their own lower tuition while allowing higher awards at the University of Minnesota and private colleges. No formal vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the chair indicated the committee would continue with item-by-item review of the remaining parameter changes and hear additional testimony from agencies and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The top line is all plans combined.
• We wanted to show how this line movement occurs without that expected surplus...
• We wanted to show how this line movement occurs without that expected surplus from that system.
• Those are the dotted lines you see.
• So focusing on those trend lines, what we see is that the general salary growth, the blue dotted line

Summary: The committee approved the July minutes and then received an informational presentation from the Office of the State Actuary on the financial condition of the state retirement systems. The actuary reported that employer contribution rates are generally declining, helped by strong investment returns and reduced funding for PERS 1 and TERS 1, while funded ratios have continued to improve; on a combined basis the plans were reported at 100% funded in 2024, with open plans above 95% and legacy plans varying by system. The presentation also reviewed projected rates and funded ratios under current assumptions, noted that pension costs are taking a smaller share of the state general fund, and discussed risks from investment volatility, policy changes, and demographic experience. Committee members asked about savings from lower rates, deferred asset smoothing, and how Washington compares with other states. The committee then considered the state actuary’s recommendation on long-term economic assumptions and adopted all four recommendations by roll call votes: inflation at 3.0%, general salary growth at 3.5%, membership growth for Plan 1 funding at 1.0%, and investment rate of return at 7.25%. The actuaries explained that the inflation and salary growth increases were driven largely by higher long-term inflation expectations, while the investment return recommendation matched the current statutory assumption. Members discussed the timing of the Pension Funding Council’s decision, the effect of tariffs and inflation uncertainty, and how assumption changes would affect future contribution rates and budgets, particularly for open plans. Staff then gave an update on the LEOFF 1 study, explaining the difference between being “ahead of schedule” and truly overfunded, and summarizing responses received from DRS, the State Treasurer, and the State Investment Board on the merger and restatement proposals. DRS said both bills could be administered, though the merger bill’s COLA banking provision would be challenging until its new system is ready; the Treasurer urged caution, especially about the restatement bill and the use of one-time funds; and the Investment Board said removing assets from the trust would have some transaction costs but likely small impacts. The committee discussed whether to invite additional agencies and local government groups to testify, and staff said more responses, including from Ice Miller and the State Actuary, were expected for the October meeting. Finally, the committee heard a briefing on PERS 1/TERS 1 COLA policy and related bills from the last session. Staff reviewed the committee’s prior ongoing COLA recommendation, the SCPP-endorsed bills that would have created a one-time 3% COLA followed by an ongoing COLA, the Senate merger bill, and a separate ad hoc COLA bill. Public testimony largely supported Plan 1 COLAs and stable contribution rates, while several speakers urged caution about transferring LEOFF 1 surplus assets or merging legacy plans, and others raised concerns about climate risk and the pension fund’s investments. No further committee action was taken on the COLA item during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• months, how that money will be spent, and what would happen if those dollars are not fully satisfied in line
• This budget amendment places an overall surplus of $32.1 million into reserve and multiple appropriation
• The main driver of the surplus is declining caseloads. Follow-up, Representative Tant. Thank you.
• Meyer was curious, what is driving or what is predominantly responsible for that $32 million in surplus
• I think that's mainly good news, but just want to make sure. 32 million in surplus.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That was not my surplus statement, okay? The surplus statement..."
• That was not my surplus statement, okay? The surplus statement..."
• Move to accept line number 12 on our House Finance line—the suggested decrease in line number 12 of removing
• :49:07.159> line<01:49:08.159> well<01:49:08.520> the on the house finance line
• of suggested decrease in line number 12 of suggested decrease in line number 12 of removing<01:49

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division II work session focused on Fish and Game’s budget-revenue proposals and several statutory changes the department said it needs to support its operations. The department recommended raising the fisheries habitat fee and wildlife habitat fee to $5 each, estimating additional annual revenue of about $640,000 and $144,000 respectively. Members clarified that these are habitat fees added on top of licenses, not reduced by senior or youth license categories, and discussed the need for RSA changes to allow the revenue to be transferred into the Fish and Game Fund. The department also said it would work internally on any broader license fee increases through the commission process. The committee then reviewed proposals to cap several dedicated accounts and transfer excess balances to the unrestricted Fish and Game Fund. Those accounts included the fisheries and wildlife habitat funds and the game management account, with the department proposing a $750,000 cap on each and transfer of amounts above that threshold. The department said the cap was based on several years of expenditures and the fact that dedicated funds are often used as match for federal funds. Members asked for reports on fund activity and questioned whether the cap and mandatory transfer language should be “shall” or “may,” with the department indicating it would prefer “may” for flexibility. The committee also discussed a Pheasant Management Program account, where the department said current law limits use of the money to buying and propagating pheasants and it wants authority to use it for broader program management. A substantial portion of the meeting addressed Fish and Game’s environmental review unit and the transfer of ARPA-funded positions to DEES under the governor’s initiative. The department said four positions are currently ARPA-funded, that DEES supports keeping them in place through the end of the year, and that the transition will require time because environmental review work is intertwined across the agency. The department explained that before the ARPA positions, biologists handled the work and that current staffing has helped eliminate a backlog and meet deadlines. Members also discussed a proposal to expand environmental review fees beyond private developers to state, federal, municipal, and local governments, with the department saying it would need rulemaking and stakeholder input. Additional requests included authority to conduct raffles to raise funds, creation of a revolving account for donations and raffle proceeds, and repeal of the obsolete fish food sales statute because the vending machines are no longer functional and the account generates no revenue.

Transcript Highlights:

• , but that budget only increased the Rainy Day Fund by $3 billion in 2022-23. $100 billion surplus.
• core spending in particular, which is in the lighter line.
• It's untested, and it's called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account.
• In 2023, the state enjoyed a record-breaking $97.5 billion surplus.
• And unfortunately, in 2024, a $45 billion... ...surplus.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on proposals to reform California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or rainy day fund, ahead of the May Revision. Members and witnesses reviewed how Proposition 2 (2014) changed reserve rules, including mandatory deposits, a 10% cap on the fund, and limits tied to the Governor’s declaration of a budget emergency. LAO staff explained that California’s revenues are highly volatile, that current reserve rules are complicated by interactions with Proposition 98 and the Gann limit, and that under current law reserves would cover only about one-third of funding shortfalls in a benchmark scenario over 50 years. The LAO presented its report recommending a larger reserve target, including raising the cap to 50% by 2055 and pairing that with either broader, more flexible deposit rules or a simpler approach that deposits all excess capital gains. The Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to raise the cap from 10% to 20% and exempt BSA deposits from the state appropriations limit, while Assembly Member Valencia presented ACA 1, which would make similar changes and was described as an evolving proposal. Testimony generally supported saving more during boom years, but differed on how much to hardwire into the Constitution versus leave flexible, and on whether to broaden the deposit formulas beyond capital gains. Public witnesses and committee members raised additional issues, including whether reserve reforms should also address debt repayment, the treatment of unemployment insurance fund debt, and whether the Gann limit should be adjusted to better allow reserve growth. Supporters argued that stronger reserves would protect Californians from cuts during downturns and help the state weather volatility and federal funding threats. Some advocates warned that reforms should not come at the expense of current public needs, while taxpayer representatives cautioned against turning the BSA into a pass-through account that weakens constitutional spending limits. The hearing ended without a vote, with the committee chair noting the complexity of the issue and adjourning after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• against the general fund bottom line. against the general fund bottom line.
• line. Um previous slide please. line. Um previous slide please.
• The solid line on top represents the current forecast, and the dashed line in the bottom shows where
• We have historic grown the surplus.
• <01:04:46.079> and is we have a $2.5 billion surplus and is we have a $2.5 billion surplus

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Surplus lines insurance is a specialized coverage available from certain insurers not licensed in Texas
• , but eligible as surplus lines carriers.
• However, TDI does license and regulate the surplus lines agents.
• Surplus lines agents are responsible for placing coverage with eligible carriers.
• Except for certain commercial lines that have been exempted by statute, a surplus lines agent must make

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, well, I actually have an example of the Fish and Game surplus statement here in a couple pages.
• Uh, well, I actually have an example of the Fish and Game surplus statement here in a couple pages.
• The lines without the border are the ones that, as of now, the governor seems to be willing to include
• The lines without the border are the ones that, as of now, the governor seems to be willing to include
• <00:27:25.120> without<00:27:25.399> the to us the on the the lines without the to

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting was an introductory House Finance Division Two session focused on committee procedures, staffing, and the upcoming budget process. Mickey Landrian, the division analyst, introduced himself and explained that the subcommittee operates more informally than the full committee, does not hold executive sessions or public hearings itself, and makes recommendations back to House Finance. Members were told that public hearings on legislation occur in the full committee, while Division Two will hold work sessions and vote on recommendations such as ought to pass, retain, or ITL. The chair also welcomed new members and a new clerk, and noted that meetings will be recorded and streamed, with microphones required for audio capture. A substantial portion of the meeting covered the division’s workload and schedule. Landrian outlined the agencies assigned to Division Two, including Safety, Fish and Game, Transportation, Education, the Lottery Commission, Police Standards and Training, the University System, and the Community College System. He explained the different fund types the division will handle, especially Education Trust Fund, Highway Fund, and Fish and Game Fund, and reviewed reference materials distributed to members, including agency budget requests, prior recommendation tracking sheets, and surplus statements. He emphasized that the agency budget requests and related handouts are available online and useful for members to review before budget work begins. Members discussed the compressed timeline for the session, with a target date of March 26 for completing Division Two recommendations. Landrian said only a few bills had been referred to Finance so far, none yet to Division Two, but that more bills and amendments were expected, including many amendments to House Bill 2. He noted that the committee would need to move efficiently and frontload meetings. Representative Papich added that Fish and Game may require closer scrutiny than in prior years because of its push for direct general fund appropriations, and members also discussed the importance of getting preliminary budget documents before the governor’s budget is finalized. No votes were taken and no formal actions were reported beyond the procedural overview and distribution of materials.