Joint Legislative Budget Committee adopts rules, elects chair and vice chair; LAO briefs committee on role and workload

The Joint Legislative Budget Committee on Oct. 27, 2025, re-adopted its committee rules and unanimously elected a chair from the Senate and a vice chair from the Assembly, then received a briefing from the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) about the office’s mission, staffing and workload.

The actions came at the committee's first hearing of the session, held in the Swing Space, 1020 10th Street, Room 1200. The committee voted to readopt the 2023 rules and to elect Senator Richardson as chair and Assemblymember Gabriel as vice chair. Both motions passed on unanimous tallies recorded as 8-0 in the Senate and 7-0 in the Assembly.

The committee’s re-adoption of the rules preserves the existing procedures governing how it reviews midyear budget requests and agency reports. Hans Hayman, principal consultant for the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, described the distribution process for budget-notification letters and said the committee and its staff share draft responses with budget consultants and the Legislative Analyst’s Office before publishing them.

Gabe Petek, the Legislative Analyst, gave members an overview of the LAO’s history, statutory role and typical workload. Petek told the committee the LAO was established by joint legislative rule in 1941 and that the office is funded through the Legislature’s budget, which supports the LAO’s independence from the executive branch. “My name is Gabe Petek,” Petek said in opening his remarks, and he reviewed the LAO’s responsibilities, including revenue and expenditure estimates, independent calculations of state funding formulas such as Proposition 98 and Proposition 2, fiscal analyses of governor proposals, fiscal assessments of state employee bargaining agreements and impartial fiscal analyses for ballot measures under the Political Reform Act of 1974.

Petek described the LAO’s role reviewing midyear budget-notification letters that the administration sends when it seeks changes to the budget after enactment. He said the office typically receives between about 100 and 250 such notifications in a year and that the LAO writes a detailed analysis for a smaller subset when it identifies issues — for example, requests inconsistent with prior legislative action or requests that seek an expedited waiver of the standard 20- or 30-day review period.

Petek also summarized the LAO’s organizational structure and staffing levels: roughly 40 analysts organized into eight subject-area teams and about 10 support staff. He noted the office’s funding is constrained by the legislative spending limit resulting from Proposition 140. Petek said the office provides both public analyses (available at lao.ca.gov) and confidential support to members on request.

Members thanked the LAO for its work and asked for clarification on items such as the LAO’s role in producing subcommittee handouts and whether pandemic-era changes affected certain counts in the LAO’s product table. Petek said staff routinely coordinate with subcommittee staff to prepare hearing materials and offered to follow up on specific counts.

Votes at a glance: The committee recorded the following formal actions during the hearing — both adopted without objection. Adopt committee rules: Motion moved by Assemblymember Quirk Silva, seconded by Assemblymember Gabriel; outcome: approved; recorded tally — 8-0 (Senate) and 7-0 (Assembly). Elect chair and vice chair (Senate chair / Assembly vice chair, motion naming Senator Richardson as chair and Assemblymember Gabriel as vice chair): Motion moved by Senator Richardson, seconded by Senator Cabaldon; outcome: approved; recorded tally — 8-0 (Senate) and 7-0 (Assembly).

The committee adjourned after recording the votes and welcoming members who joined late to add their names to the recorded approvals.