Transcript Highlights:

• University. and completed his residency right here in Austin in the Southwestern Family Medicine Program
• But and I was a I was a high school athlete but I know both the men's and women's programs in Duncanville
• . are not only perennial championship programs, they are legendary. championship programs and so congratulations
• A long-standing civic program that's now in its 30th year of preparing the next generation of community
• yes with no funding help from the state of Texas that's correct and that's what you're talking about

Bills: SJR12, SJR81, SB22, SB32, SB241, SB393, SB414, SB458, SB464, SB568, SB583, SB609, SB660, SB664, SB693, SB731, SB732, SB746, SB779, SB783, SB785, SB868, SB897, SB921, SB955, SB1008, SB1029, SB1036, SB1057, SB1059, SB1120, SB1122, SB1147, SB1163, SB1188, SB1197, SB1209, SB1245, SB1321, SB1332, SB1365, SB1394, SB1396, SB1470, SB1484, SB1494, SB1537, SB1596, SB1598, SB1637, SB1644, SB1809, SB1814, SB1822, SB1841, SB1948, SB2064, SB2065, SB2112, SB2155, SB2226, SB2320, SB2406, SJR36, SJR81, SJR50, SJR4, SJR40, SJR27, SCR22, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SB1396, SB1209, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB241, SB304, SB1023, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB955, SB957, SB541, SB266, SB1415, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB1062, SB711, SB746, SB1404, SB1448, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB667, SB1059, SB1567, SB310, SB311, SB505, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB1350, SB462, SB827, SB1585, SB1484, SB1273, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1841, SB1147, SB1008, SB2016, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB860, SB993, SB693, SB1537, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB984, SB619, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1877, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB660, SB731, SB921, SB268, SB1822, SB1589, SB397, SB1058, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB2155, SB508, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719, SB287, SB2143, SB1245, SB261, SB1247, SB1948, SB2406, SB2407, SB1882, SB1814, SB618, SB38, SB393, SB1371, SB1394, SB1365, SB2243, SB2226, SB2039, SB1919, SB1895, SB1598, SB1493, SB1810, SB1791, SB1706, SB1644, SB1238, SB783, SB458, SB22, SB651, SB897, SB1809, SB1080, SB745, SB826, SB989, SB1320, SB1437, SB2320, SB2289, SB1171, SB664, SB1637, SB2064, SB868, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB883, SB249, SB1318, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB365, SB1067, SB1786, SB326, SB1401, SB1592, SB1728, SB1265, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1559, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1677, SB95, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB871, SB510, SB33, SB2420, SB1860, SB1541, SB1316, SB1314, SB1313, SB1426, SB1398, SB1869, SB1750, SB1871, SB36, SB855, SB1233, SB760, SB2425, SB2037, SB1758, SB1759, SB2365, SB1924, SB762, SB1271, SB1818, SB605, SB1405, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2148, SB2321, SB1967, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB37, SB241, SB1147, SB1394, SB1814, SB1948, SB2155, SB1209, SB1396, SB609, SB660, SB921, SR373, SR374, SR376, SR377, SR379, SR381, SR386, SB2332, SB3040, SB3041, SB2332, SB3040, SB3041

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, tax exemption, ad valorem, tangible personal property, income production, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation, economic development, ad valorem taxation, franchise tax credit, personal property, public camping

Transcript Highlights:

• This program has been funded by a mix of General Fund and greenhouse gas reduction funds since about
• I love this program, but should this program be funded with new General Fund dollars, or should we, with
• I love this program, but should this program be funded with new general fund dollars, or should we, with
• school nutrition funding programs.
• , you know, school nutrition funding programs.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard the administration’s spending plan for Proposition 4’s climate smart agriculture and biodiversity chapters, along with related trailer bill language. CDFA outlined proposed funding for existing programs such as SWEEP, Healthy Soils, Urban Agriculture, and invasive species work, plus new or phased-in programs including year-round and mobile farmers’ markets, tribal food sovereignty, and regional farm equipment sharing. The Department of Conservation described funding for the California Farmland Conservancy Program and Working Lands and Riparian Corridors Program, while the Department of Finance and LAO discussed pending allocations and generally found the overall approach reasonable, though LAO suggested the Legislature may want more statutory guidance and reporting, especially for new programs. Members focused on implementation details, equity, and accountability. Questions covered how programs would serve vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, whether new solicitations would be reopened for previously oversubscribed grants, how outcomes are tracked, and how to structure guidance for new programs such as farm equipment sharing. The chair emphasized that the Legislature wants clearer direction on program design and noted that AB 2313 should guide implementation of the regional farm equipment sharing allocation. The committee also discussed the administration’s request to directly appropriate bond funds to departments and to exempt bond program guidelines from the Administrative Procedures Act; LAO supported the APA exemption with possible legislative guardrails for public notice and comment. The committee then heard on the farm-to-school proposal, with CDFA requesting $24.9 million General Fund for incubator grants, technical assistance, and network support. CDFA said the program has reached nearly half of California schoolchildren and has shown strong demand and positive evaluation results. LAO supported the core program but recommended rejecting the $3 million technical assistance component as too broad and suggested the Legislature consider using Proposition 98 for some of the funding. Members debated that point, with some expressing concern about using General Fund dollars for a new discretionary request during a tight budget year. The biodiversity and nature-based solutions chapter included funding for the Wildlife Conservation Board, state conservancies, and tribal nature-based solutions. WCB described major recent investments and proposed projects tied to 30 by 30, habitat restoration, tribal partnerships, and public access. Members raised concerns about long-term stewardship, the size of the WCB allocation, and whether the Legislature should receive more detail on how funds will be distributed. The committee also heard requests for Bolsa Chica wetlands maintenance and Rincon Island decommissioning funding from the State Lands Commission, with members questioning long-term liability, remediation costs, and the role of private oil operators. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with public comment from stakeholders largely supporting the APA exemption, farm-to-school funding, biodiversity investments, and related conservation programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• funding for the kitchen infrastructure and training program.
• funds for a program that people who may be, Is utilizing one-time funds for a program that people who
• At this time, it's a one-time funded program.
• This is a program that's had long-standing unspent funding.
• implement this program with the one-time funds.

Summary: The committee heard the May Revision presentation for the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, with public comment focused heavily on K-12 priorities such as universal school meals, kitchen infrastructure, food service and custodial support, youth leadership grants, Special Olympics funding, English learner support, universal pre-K, literacy investments, and concerns about community college funding shifts. Speakers also urged support for expanded learning, teacher recruitment and training, and maintaining or increasing funding for community colleges and student support programs. Finance and the LAO then reviewed the Proposition 98 outlook. Finance said the May Revision lowers the 2025-26 Prop. 98 guarantee to $114.6 billion, about $4.3 billion below January, due mainly to lower revenue estimates, with smaller effects from attendance and property tax changes. The administration also described rebenching for universal transitional kindergarten and a one-time rebench tied to Los Angeles fire-related property tax losses, along with changes to the Public School System Stabilization Account, deferrals, and updated COLA assumptions. The LAO said the budget relies too much on deferrals and one-time funds, creates a structural shortfall, and should instead align ongoing spending with the guarantee and preserve a reserve buffer. Members questioned the TK rebench and the shift of funding from community colleges to K-12, asking why it was being applied retroactively and how colleges would be held harmless. Finance said the changes align funding with where TK costs are being incurred and that reappropriation funding and other adjustments would offset impacts on community colleges. The LAO argued the historical split formula is outdated and should be abandoned in favor of budgeting around current priorities rather than fixed percentages. Members also raised concerns about draining the rainy day reserve and using deferrals, while the LAO said preserving reserves would better protect against future volatility. The committee then moved to specific K-12 and education proposals. Finance outlined May Revision changes including state operations adjustments for the Department of Education, technical trailer bill changes, a $100 million student teacher stipend program administered by Kern County, and updates to the charter school facility grant program. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposed increases for expanded learning, literacy coaches, and the student teacher stipend as currently structured, while supporting the minimum grant increase for expanded learning. Members expressed support for teacher recruitment efforts but questioned whether one-time funding can sustain ongoing programs and whether the student teacher stipend should be targeted to shortage areas or low-income communities.

Transcript Highlights:

• programs including one-time funding.
• At this time, it's a one-time funded program.
• This is a program that's had long standing unspent funding.
• It is a federal program, there's matching funds as well.
• funded. through the program.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• For these programs, we propose spending funds largely in the budget year as we can award the Funding
• This program has been funded by a mix of general fund and greenhouse gas reduction funds since about
• I love this program, but should this program be funded with new general fund dollars, or should we, with
• Of the CDA program, you know, the existing school nutrition funding programs.
• Programs, but those federal programs are distinct from these funds.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• department Medicaid funded programs. department Medicaid funded programs.
• department Medicaid funded programs. department Medicaid funded programs.
• department Medicaid funded programs. department Medicaid funded programs.
• development fund or to programs funded development fund or to programs funded by<02:07:41.760>
• department Medicaid funded programs. department Medicaid funded programs.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The House convened with a quorum, approved the prior journal, and heard several brief recognitions before moving to business. Members welcomed foster care advocates for Child Abuse Prevention Month, Girl Scouts visiting the Capitol, and participants in Black Maternal Health Week, with remarks emphasizing foster youth voice, leadership development, and the need for culturally competent maternal health care and doula/midwife support. The chamber then took up House Joint Resolution 1026, honoring former Governor Roy Romer and designating a portion of I-25 as the Governor Roy Romer Memorial Highway. Supporters highlighted Romer’s long public service, his work on education and infrastructure, and his role in major state projects. A proposed amendment to strike the word “memorial” was withdrawn, the House suspended the rules to allow Romer to speak from the well, and Romer offered remarks about legislative collegiality and the importance of democracy and listening to opposing views. House Joint Resolution 1026 was adopted on a 60-0 vote, with four excused and one absent. After a brief recess, the House returned to special orders and resumed reading House Bill 1410 at length, continuing through extensive appropriations language for the Department of Human Services, including child welfare, youth services, Medicaid-related transfers, SNAP and benefits administration, and other funding line items. No final action on House Bill 1410 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• 98 General Fund because the May Revision funds one program with both sources.
• , with $1.3 million in one-time funding to implement this program.
• funding to implement this program.
• If General Fund constraints make that difficult, they suggest funding the program with Prop 98 dollars
• If the general fund constraints make that difficult, we suggest funding the program with Prop 98 dollars

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard May Revision proposals covering higher education, including the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the University of California, California Community Colleges, the California Student Aid Commission, UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and trailer bill reporting changes. For the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the administration proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan taken to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to adjust for a pending legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about an interest-free loan under Proposition 26. Senators asked about whether the $10 million would cover the litigation and about the estimated $245,000 in interest savings. For UC, the May Revision maintained the Governor’s ongoing support and included budget language requiring campuses to grow by 2,968 California undergraduates in 2026-27. UC also sought $1.5 million in one-time General Fund support for the First Star foster youth program. UC described strong outcomes for the UCLA program, while the LAO recommended rejecting the new spending because UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and because the need for new state funding was not clear. Senators debated whether the proposal duplicated existing services and discussed the program’s reported college-going and completion rates. The committee also heard a request for $1 million ongoing General Fund for UC College of the Law, San Francisco, to maintain campus safety services; the college described its shared-campus model and public-interest mission, while the LAO noted the college was also raising tuition and that the proposal would maintain, rather than expand, current security spending. The committee then reviewed community college proposals. Finance outlined a larger May Revision package centered on a 4.31% SCFF COLA, enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, a one-time Adult Learner Demonstration Project allocation, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time items. The Chancellor’s Office supported the package but asked for more enrollment growth funding, a higher growth rate, and additional policy changes. The LAO recommended at least funding the statutory 2.87% COLA, then considering whether to redirect remaining funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time priorities; it recommended rejecting the Adult Learner Demonstration Project. Senators questioned the use of the discretionary COLA to cover paid pregnancy disability leave, the impact on hold harmless and basic aid districts, and whether the state should instead create a separate categorical. The Chancellor’s Office and Finance said the COLA approach was intended to provide flexibility, though Finance said it was open to further discussion about districts that would not receive direct funding. For student aid, Finance described May Revision changes to Cal Grant and the Middle Class Scholarship, including a one-time reduction tied to lower estimated costs and a later true-up, as well as proposals for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. CSAC supported the financial aid investments but urged more time and clearer implementation planning for Workforce Pell, noting the need for state approval processes, data linkages, and likely ongoing administrative workload. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding and cautioned that the Workforce Pell trailer bill and one-time funding were premature given the new federal rules and unclear workload. Senators also raised concerns about the Middle Class Scholarship reduction, the need to support students facing higher living costs, and the decline in CADA/DREAM Act applications, with CSAC saying the drop did not reflect reduced need and that outreach should be strengthened. The final item was a set of technical trailer bill changes to shift some UC, CSU, and community college reporting from annual to biennial and consolidate reports; Finance said there were no programmatic changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• okay, how are we going to keep this ongoing program funded?
• Secondly, there's lots of programs that don't have funding in the program ceased to exist, even though
• a permanent program with ongoing funding?
• and they're not active programs, they move to be an inactive program because there's no funding for it
• Market Match is the largest program funded by the California Nutrition Incentive Program.

Summary: The meeting began with a lengthy opening discussion with Secretary Karen Ross of the Department of Food and Agriculture, who reviewed the department’s proposed budget, emphasized California agriculture’s record output, and highlighted major priorities including climate-smart agriculture, groundwater management, local food systems, farm-to-school, food hubs, invasive pest prevention, bird flu response, and food safety. She also warned about federal budget cuts, especially at USDA and FDA, and discussed market access challenges abroad, rising input costs, labor shortages, and the need for automation and workforce training. Members raised questions about the future of Farm to School, the California Nutrition Incentive Program/Market Match, local food procurement, and how to better connect farmers to schools, food banks, and food hubs; Ross said the department had strong evidence the program benefits small farms and Title I schools and noted continued interest in building out local food infrastructure. The committee then took up item one on eliminating vacant positions at the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Parks and Recreation, and Food and Agriculture. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that the Governor proposed eliminating 6,000 vacant positions statewide, with the Joint Legislative Budget Committee previously rejecting 650 of them, including 174 in these three departments. LAO and Finance said the vacancies represented a source of budget flexibility, but warned that eliminating them could create program impacts; LAO recommended retaining the special-funded positions at Fish and Wildlife and Food and Agriculture, while weighing the General Fund positions against other priorities. Finance argued the reductions were part of a broader budget-resiliency exercise and that departments could reclassify or shift vacancies to higher priorities. Members focused heavily on the practical impacts of the cuts. Assemblymember Petrie-Norris argued that Fish and Wildlife staffing shortages were already slowing permits needed for housing, clean energy, water, and transportation projects, and questioned the value of saving relatively small amounts of money. Fish and Wildlife officials said the department had prioritized mission-critical work and could still meet permitting obligations, but acknowledged limited-term staffing constraints. State Parks said the proposed ranger and maintenance cuts would not have immediate effects but could slow maintenance and eventually worsen deferred maintenance. Food and Agriculture said some of the eliminated positions supported early pest detection and eradication, but that the department believed it could still meet its mandate and reclassify positions if needed. The chair and several members signaled concern about the Fish and Wildlife and Parks cuts, while also noting the broader need for budget reductions. The committee then moved to item six, hearing an overview from the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. Staff described the office’s role in CEQA implementation and said the budget requests were baseline funding to maintain existing functions, including IT services and administrative/legislative support, rather than new programs. The chair asked the presenters to move quickly through background material so the committee could get to questions, and the item began with no votes taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• funding to this program in the paused funding to this program in the coming<00:47:01.200> year.
• federal funds column for that program. federal funds column for that program.
• markets program and $26,550 general fund be used for the Colorado Proud program. fund cash funds reappropriated
• in for All Program Fund created 12 in for All Program Fund created 12 in section<04:03:55.760>
• 4 categorical program funding for 0.4 4 categorical program funding for 0.4 4 FTE<04:41:01.440>

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The committee and floor took up House Bill 1411, which concerned the Cover All Colorado program. Debate centered on whether removing the program’s cap would create an open-ended entitlement and add pressure to the state budget. Supporters and opponents argued over fiscal impacts, with several members saying the program had grown far beyond its original cost estimate and that the state needed to protect the budget and maintain a balanced plan. The bill was ultimately passed as amended. House Bill 1412 was then considered, authorizing the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to use statistical sampling and extrapolation to recover Medicaid overpayments in certain provider audits, including ABA therapy and non-emergency medical transportation. Sponsors said the measure would help recapture millions in overpayments tied to fraud, waste, and abuse, and noted safeguards such as strict benchmarks, internal audit review, and a third-party audit firm. An amendment striking the word “alleged” from the bill was adopted, and the bill passed as amended. House Bill 1413, which changes leave provisions for certain public servants, was also approved. The bill removes a statutory cap on how much sick leave state employees may earn, while leaving actual leave policies to departments and bargaining agreements, and increases annual military leave to align with federal law. Members described it as a modest employee-benefit measure in a year without across-the-board pay raises. The House also laid over House Bill 1410 until later in the day and received the committee of the whole report on a large slate of other bills. Later, Representative Richardson sought to reverse the committee’s action on an amendment to House Bill 1389, which involved the comprehensive human sexuality education grant fund, arguing the grant program should be repealed if it is no longer funded.

Transcript Highlights:

• I serve as the chair, and we have a number of funding programs as well as policy programs through that
• how are we going to keep this ongoing program funded?
• permanent program with ongoing funding.
• permanent program with ongoing funding.
• Market Match is the largest program funded by the California Nutrition Incentive Program.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard opening remarks from Secretary of Food and Agriculture Karen Ross, who reviewed the department’s budget and priorities. She emphasized California agriculture’s record production, but also the pressures facing farmers from climate change, drought, groundwater regulation, supply chain disruptions, low commodity prices, and federal funding cuts. Ross highlighted ongoing investments in Farm to School, local food procurement, food hubs, climate-smart agriculture, invasive pest prevention, bird flu response, and food safety, and she warned that proposed USDA cuts and market disruptions could harm research, pest control, and export development. Members also discussed the importance of local food systems, school kitchens, and the need to better connect farmers to schools, food banks, and institutions. A major topic was the Farm to School program and related local food initiatives. The chair raised concerns that the Legislative Analyst’s Office was recommending against continued funding for Farm to School because it did not meet the state’s “must-have” standard, and suggested pairing it more closely with the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program and food hubs to broaden its impact. Ross responded that Farm to School has already reached nearly half of California students, has helped small farms, and is part of a larger strategy that includes school kitchen investments and culinary training. Members also discussed Market Match/CNIP, which Ross said was not funded in the current budget, and Proposition 4 climate bond spending, including SWEEP, Healthy Soils, urban agriculture, invasive species work, tribal food sovereignty, and land access programs. The committee then moved to Item 1 on eliminating vacant positions at the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Parks and Recreation, and Food and Agriculture. The LAO explained that the Governor proposed eliminating 6,000 vacant positions statewide, with the JLBC previously not concurring with 650 of them, including 174 in these three departments. The LAO recommended retaining the special-funded positions at Fish and Wildlife and Food and Agriculture because they support important functions and do not materially help the budget, while weighing the General Fund positions against other priorities. Finance said the vacancy reductions were intended to improve budget resiliency and preserve flexibility, noting that vacant positions can be used to cover other operational costs or be reclassified. Department representatives argued some eliminated positions were hard to fill and that the cuts would affect permitting, public safety, maintenance, and pest detection, though they said immediate impacts would be limited because many positions were already vacant. Members pressed Finance and department staff on whether the savings justified the program impacts, especially at Fish and Wildlife, where permitting bottlenecks were described as a concern for housing, clean energy, water, and transportation projects. Several members questioned why special funds tied to fees were being reduced, and why Fish and Wildlife’s special funds were treated differently from other departments. Parks said the proposed ranger and maintenance cuts would not have immediate effects but could slow long-term maintenance and staffing capacity. CDFA said some of the eliminated positions supported early pest detection, the broom rape program, and other oversight functions, but that the department believed it could still meet its mandate through reclassification and internal prioritization. No votes were taken, and the chair noted that public comment would come after all items were heard.

Transcript Highlights:

• As an example of other programs funded under the mental health grants, they include programs to address
• The funding that we retained in the program is to continue funding the existing programs and services
• program because funds weren't used.
• The funding that we retained in the program is to continue funding the existing programs and services
• program because funds weren't used.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held an informational hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, focusing first on the Commission on Behavioral Health, then EMSA, and then the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). The Department of Finance said the state faces a third consecutive deficit and that the May Revision includes difficult trade-offs, including proposed eliminations or reversions of some behavioral health and public health funds. The LAO echoed concern about the structural deficit and said it was still awaiting some budget details before offering a full analysis. For the Commission on Behavioral Health, Finance proposed eliminating $20 million in Mental Health Wellness Act funds, arguing the money would help offset General Fund costs and noting future Proposition 1 innovation funding. The commission strongly opposed the cut, saying it would eliminate or delay launch-ready grants for early childhood supports, full-service partnerships, and peer respite, and would eventually end ongoing grant programming. Several advocates and commissioners testified that the funds support underserved communities and that Proposition 1 is not a substitute for the existing programs. The chair asked Finance to look for alternatives, but no vote was taken. EMSA presented mostly technical budget adjustments: increased authority for the California Poison Control System, a correction to EMSIS funding, and a reappropriation for enterprise services and data management. CDPH then reviewed a broader set of May Revision proposals, including reversions from the California Reducing Disparities Project, workforce development, STD prevention, hepatitis C prevention, hospice, and extreme heat funding, as well as a new generative AI pilot for health facility survey reporting. Members raised concerns about cuts to CRDP and gender health equity programs, especially because many grants are mid-contract and serve underserved communities; CDPH said the reversions were part of solving the deficit and that CRDP had been successful, while also clarifying that abortion.ca.gov would not be eliminated. Public comment was overwhelmingly opposed to the CRDP and related cuts, with many speakers describing the programs as life-saving and cost-effective. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Funding for the remaining programs in goal B.
• And yet we have not yet been able to fund. agriculture and engineering programs.
• Higher Education Fund, Texas Grants, and maintain funding for Hazel's Legacy Program.
• And so these programs would actually help fund those those clinical slots.
• The program was originally funded with COVID funding, so that's one of the challenges. that we have is

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we funded those 21 programs?
• like starting a new program would be more expensive than funding an existing program.
• this program is with Proposition 98 general fund.
• to the way the Cal Grant program is funded.
• to the way the Cal Grant program is funded.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance heard an extended discussion on state efforts to recruit, prepare, and retain teachers, with a focus on whether current programs are sustainable and well targeted. Testimony from the Learning Policy Institute, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the Department of Education, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office described persistent shortages, especially in special education, math, science, bilingual education, and high-need schools. Speakers emphasized that residency programs, Golden State Teacher Grants, National Board incentives, classified employee pathways, and undergraduate teacher pipelines have helped increase preparation and retention, but many of these efforts rely on one-time funding and lack long-term certainty. Committee members repeatedly raised concerns about the “leaky pipeline,” working conditions, the burden of student debt, and whether the state should simplify and institutionalize support for aspiring teachers rather than rely on a patchwork of grants. The agencies presented data showing continuing shortages and uneven distribution of fully credentialed teachers. CTC reported projected hiring needs of roughly 20,000 to 25,000 teachers annually, with the highest needs in self-contained classrooms, special education, and certain regions of the state. It also noted that emergency permits, waivers, and intern credentials remain high, and that teachers entering through those routes have higher turnover. LPI cited research showing residency-prepared teachers are more effective and more likely to stay, and argued that Golden State Teacher Grants attract candidates who might not otherwise enter teaching and help them complete preparation. CDE stressed that most new demand comes from attrition and urged support for multiple entry points, tuition assistance, and campus-based coursework. Several members also discussed the role of community college pathways, dual credentialing, and support for school leaders as part of retention. The LAO recommended rejecting the educator pipeline proposals under discussion, citing limited evidence of effectiveness and suggesting that any new spending should be more narrowly targeted to the highest-need schools and long-standing shortage subjects. The LAO also said that if the Legislature funds new programs this year, Proposition 98 would be preferable given the state’s fiscal condition. Committee members pushed back on the idea that declining enrollment or layoffs would solve shortages, noting that shortages and layoffs can coexist in different subject areas and regions. The discussion ended with agreement that staff would continue working with agencies on how to make teacher pipeline investments more consistent, coherent, and easier for candidates to navigate. The committee then turned to the Golden State Teacher Grant Program. Finance proposed $50 million in one-time General Fund support to extend the program for one additional year, while the LAO recommended rejecting the proposal because the first CSAC evaluation is not due until later in the year and because the funding would be non-Proposition 98. CSAC supported the extension, saying demand has been strong, over 20,000 aspiring educators have been served since 2021, and the agency had to pause applications after receiving more than 9,200 this year; it also said more than 2,500 candidates had already expressed interest for next year. Members asked how many students the new funding would serve, and CSAC estimated just under 5,000 awards at $10,000 each. The discussion also covered whether the grant could be moved into Proposition 98 and how the one-time nature of the funding affects confidence among prospective teachers.

Transcript Highlights:

• in one-time funding to implement the program.
• General Fund because the May Revision funds one program with both sources.
• look at funding the program with Proposition 98.
• funding for the program.
• core program without those federal funds.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up the May Revision update on Proposition 98 and the school rainy-day fund. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with lower average daily attendance projections offsetting some of the revenue gains. Finance also described a reduced $3.9 billion settle-up proposal, increased deposits into the Public School System Stabilization Account, and an ending reserve balance of about $10.3 billion. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF adjustments were reasonable, but urged the Legislature to be cautious about delaying settle-up payments and to consider more budget resiliency, including larger cushions or other tools to protect ongoing programs. Members then questioned the administration and LAO about the size of the settle-up, the rationale for the reserve deposit, declining enrollment, and how lower attendance is creating savings that can be redirected to other school priorities. The LAO said the May Revision’s mix of one-time and ongoing spending was generally reasonable but recommended keeping a strong cushion and considering alternatives such as advance payments or pension-related savings. Questions also focused on how the May Revision’s funding mix affects districts if revenues weaken, and on the treatment of special education, discretionary block grants, and paid family leave costs for LEAs and community colleges. The committee next heard the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described a higher SCFF COLA, increased apportionment costs, a student support block grant, deferred maintenance, Common Cloud, Calbright, credit for prior learning, and a one-time adult learner demonstration project. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the SCFF growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended funding the statutory COLA increase, noted a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall not yet included in the May Revision, and suggested the Legislature could instead direct some funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time uses. Members also clarified how COLA and hold-harmless rules apply to different community college districts. Finally, the committee reviewed the proposed state implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career data work, plus trailer bill changes to set up state approval of eligible programs. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, with new federal rules just released and significant data, regulatory, and systems work still needed; it said the state will not be ready by July 1 and that ongoing funding will likely be necessary. The LAO agreed that implementation will require careful trailer bill language and noted that ongoing administrative costs remain unresolved. Members asked about other states’ approaches and the practical effect on short-term workforce programs in California.

Transcript Highlights:

• to be deposited into a special fund for use by the program.
• I am concerned that we're using this fund as a General Fund supplant versus its intention of new programs
• Care Affordability Reserve Fund in 2026-27 and ongoing, bringing total program funding to $300 million
• The program, which is our largest program that we oversee at DOR, is 80% funded by the federal government
• So the baseline funding for the program is $8 million. Yes.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The hearing opened with Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst’s Office remarks on the May Revision, which both described efforts to reduce large out-year operating deficits through a mix of revenue increases, spending reductions, and reserve use. Finance said the May Revision more than halves projected deficits in later years, while LAO stressed that revenues are at unprecedented levels yet the state still faces a significant structural deficit and is drawing down reserves; LAO urged maintaining at least the administration’s level of budget solutions and adding to reserves rather than new ongoing commitments. The chair echoed concern about cuts to vulnerable populations and noted the tension between service reductions and requests for additional administrative positions. The committee then heard a series of California Health and Human Services and HCAI proposals, including additional legal support for CalHHS to respond to federal HR1 changes; a net-zero transfer of positions for a centralized eligibility/data-sharing platform; 988 crisis line implementation funding and continued work with the Trevor Project to train crisis centers to better serve LGBTQ youth; EMS data system maintenance funding; HCAI implementation of AB 1312 hospital charity care screening; SB 660 data exchange framework funding; CalRx biosimilar insulin reappropriation; and a diaper access initiative that would provide free diapers to newborns in participating hospitals and support a future direct-to-consumer purchasing option. Members questioned the diaper program’s universal design, the use of a Public Contract Code exemption, and the selection of Baby2Baby, with the chair expressing concern about optics and the lack of an income threshold. The committee also discussed distressed hospital funding, with HCAI requesting up to $50 million for another round of grants to hospitals in immediate financial distress. HCAI said it receives annual and quarterly financial reports but the data lag limits real-time monitoring, and the LAO recommended stronger program parameters and turnaround plans. Members argued the repeated need for distressed hospital aid reflects a structural problem, not a short-term gap, and raised broader concerns about hospital reimbursement and patient flow. Other items included reverting $19.6 million in unused opioid settlement funds from HCAI to DHCS for General Fund offset, and a Rural Health Transformation Program request to increase HCAI spending authority to cover the full federal award. Later, DMHC presented funding requests to implement PBM licensing and financial review requirements under AB 116, modernize the managed care complaint system, and build an electronic claims settlement data system under AB 3275. The final major discussion focused on the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, which opposed the May Revision’s proposed reduction of its Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and a $6.7 million cut to community advocacy grants. The Commission argued these programs are core to Proposition 1’s goals of statewide innovation and community accountability, while Finance said the proposal is consistent with Proposition 1’s maximum funding levels and reflects a broader effort to prioritize direct services and use unspent prior-year funds; members pressed for more information and questioned whether the cuts would undermine the new behavioral health framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• This funding directly supports Medi-Cal and helps fund the Medi-Cal program, and the digital software
• This funding directly supports Medi-Cal and helps fund the Medi-Cal program and the digital software
• I am program manager of Access California, which is a program of Cal Voices, and we are funded by the
• I am program manager of Access California, which is a program of Cal Voices, and we are funded by the
• The augmentation aligns with available program funds.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Clean trucks and buses, the H-FIT program, needs to be funded in addition to the light-duty EV program
• To fully support Tier 2 programs within SB 840's framework and leave no funding for Tier 3.
• Tier 2 and would not provide any funding for Tier 3 programs.
• So this is a really critical program, and this funding is badly needed.
• And then finally, to support the full funding for the SAFER Program.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard the Department of Finance’s May Revision overview and the LAO’s budget assessment, then questioned administration officials on several natural resources and transportation proposals. Finance described the state’s improved near-term fiscal picture, but also highlighted continued budget balancing measures, including use of the temporary surplus holding account, climate bond spending, transportation and DMV/CHP augmentations, and changes affecting CEQA filing systems, water programs, CalRecycle, and food and agriculture. The LAO argued the budget still relies heavily on reserves and borrowing, recommended rejecting or delaying many new discretionary proposals, and urged caution about ongoing costs and future-year impacts, especially for the General Fund, Motor Vehicle Account, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance officials said the $25 million request would support early implementation of an enforceable program combining environmental flows, habitat restoration, and scientific monitoring, with the State Water Board retaining regulatory authority. The LAO said the proposal was premature because the updated Bay-Delta plan had not yet been adopted and asked for more clarity on the state’s existing commitments and future funding expectations. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce long-running conflict over water policy, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquisition of the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat restoration. State agencies said the project had a completed appraisal, was moving through a rolling grant process, and would leverage philanthropic and local funding, while members questioned why it was being elevated ahead of other park and conservation requests and whether it was the best use of limited bond dollars. The hearing then turned to transportation items, including $40 million for Clean California litter abatement, $6.2 million for Caltrans homeless coordinators, $73.4 million in DMV/Motor Vehicle Account requests, and funding for the 2028 Games route network. The LAO generally recommended rejecting or delaying the Clean California and homeless coordinator proposals pending more information, while members debated the need to preserve essential CHP and DMV operations despite the Motor Vehicle Account’s structural imbalance.

Transcript Highlights:

• General Fund because the May Revision funds one program with both sources.
• at funding the program with Proposition 98.
• funding for the program.
• core program without those federal funds.
• And so if some... ...fund their core program without those federal funds.

Summary: The committee heard an overview of the May Revision’s Proposition 98 changes for K-12 and community colleges. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, full payment of the prior settle-up, and larger deposits into the school rainy-day fund. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF updates were reasonable, but urged caution about the settle-up approach and recommended using more of the available funding to protect ongoing programs and build budget resilience. Members focused heavily on the size of the proposed $3.9 billion settle-up, the $10.3 billion reserve deposit, declining K-12 enrollment, and how much of the new funding should be ongoing versus one-time. The committee then reviewed the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described the May Revision’s higher SCFF COLA, additional funding for enrollment growth, a student support block grant, apprenticeship adjustments, and continued funding for deferred maintenance, Calbright, Common Cloud, and credit for prior learning. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended prioritizing the statutory COLA increase, noted that more than half of districts are already above current-year growth targets, and said the new adult learner demonstration project should be rejected because districts already have tools to support similar services. Members also discussed a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall, which Finance said was discovered too late for the May Revision and would need to be addressed later. Finally, the committee took up the proposed implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the California Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career to build eligibility and data systems, along with trailer bill changes to set up state approval processes. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, that California lacks the needed infrastructure, and that the state will need emergency regulations, data linkages, and ongoing funding beyond the one-time proposal. The LAO agreed that some initial funding is needed but warned that the amounts and ongoing costs remain uncertain and that the Legislature should carefully draft the trailer bill language. Members asked about timing, other states’ actions, and how the state would ensure the program is ready for students and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• for invasive fruit flies and to maintain program funding in light of federal funding reductions.
• Clean trucks and buses, the H-FIT program, needs to be funded in addition to the light-duty EV program
• Tier 2 and would not provide any funding for Tier 3 programs.
• Any program that needs a durable source of funding should not be funded through GGRF, which is a declining
• Any program that needs a durable source of funding should not be funded through GGRF, which is a declining

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am the program analyst for our elderly program, and I strongly urge that we do not cut our funding
• The funding we maintained that we retained in the program is to continue funding the existing programs
• Partnering in the program, and then generally, the way the funding was structured, it wasn't enough funding
• to fund the entire build of the program.
• program funding within the Department of Health Care Services budget.

Keywords: 988, house, all