Transcript Highlights:

• Re-evaluation services was originally funded as a four-year program.
• Re-evaluation services was originally funded as a four-year program.
• spend funds from any of the buckets on innovative programs.
• Then, once the funding hits the region, it's a competitive grant program.
• , which provide funding to county offices and LEAs to fund student-facing programming in school districts

Summary: The hearing opened with remarks from the chair and members about recent federal cuts to public health, mental health, family planning, and Title X funding, with strong concern about the impact on California programs and providers. The committee then turned to the Department of State Hospitals, which presented its 2025-26 budget proposal of $3.4 billion, including new positions, capital improvements, and funding tied to increased patient costs and incompetent-to-stand-trial services. DSH reported major progress in reducing the IST waitlist and wait times, said it had met the court’s 28-day treatment benchmark for those without extenuating circumstances, and described workforce recruitment and retention efforts such as residency programs, fellowships, outreach, and hiring streamlining. Members asked about future IST referral trends, SB 1323’s effect on diversion and community treatment, and workforce lessons in high-cost regions; public comment urged reconsideration of county IST growth cap methodology in light of new criminal justice initiatives. The committee next received an informational overview of Proposition 1 and its changes to behavioral health funding and governance. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that Prop. 1 restructured county MHSA funding buckets, expanded the Commission for Behavioral Health, shifted prevention and early intervention responsibilities, and authorized a $6.4 billion bond, including $4.4 billion for behavioral health facilities through BHCIP. DHCS said it had released guidance for county integrated plans and was receiving extensive public comment. Members focused on BHCIP application requirements, especially letters of support and tribal projects, and raised concerns about whether DHCS’s implementation matched statutory intent. DHCS said it had authority to set application requirements and that tribal entities were treated differently because of sovereignty and funding structure. DHCS then updated the committee on BHCIP, the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program, and related bond implementation. The department said BHCIP had awarded about $1.7 billion across five rounds, with more than 130 projects and 223 distinct facilities funded, and that it was preparing to award the new bond funds after receiving nearly $8 billion in applications. The LAO’s assessment found that more than half of awards served at least 80% Medi-Cal enrollees, but also raised concerns that the regional allocation model could reinforce inequities, that the program had not sufficiently addressed the highest-need regions such as the southern San Joaquin Valley, and that smaller counties and less launch-ready applicants faced barriers. For bridge housing, DHCS said more than $1.1 billion had been awarded, serving over 5,000 people and supporting more than 2,000 operational beds, but the Governor’s budget proposes to eliminate Round 4 funding as the administration weighs other statewide investments and Proposition 1 implementation workload. Public commenters and members urged more accountability, better regional equity, stronger labor and community involvement, and caution about funding for for-profit psychiatric facilities. Finally, the committee heard on the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative. CalHHS and DHCS described CYBHI as a broad prevention- and equity-focused effort with more than 1,300 organizations funded, over $2.1 billion awarded, and multiple work streams spanning schools, community programs, workforce, and digital supports. DHCS highlighted school-based services, the fee schedule rollout, and digital platforms BrightLife Kids and Soluna, which it said are reaching users statewide and providing low-barrier access to coaching and support. Members and public commenters raised concerns about delays in school fee schedule implementation, the large share of funding going to digital tools, the need for more in-person services, and whether the initiative is sufficiently tracking outcomes and equity impacts. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The program has been supported for about 31 years through federal funding.
• The program that received the most funding in FY25 was Housing First.
• due to a big funding increase for a program lacking evaluation, which is for CARA.
• Because you could fund a study, you'll see with maybe some of the GROW funding, you could have a program
• is, were the matching funds that you applied for and received from the DFA matching fund program competitive

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is better helped to track per student funding in schools and scholarship programs as parents and
• and colleges to fund the creation and expansion of career and technical education core programs.
• This includes funding for the nursing program.
• Scholarship programs and requires the scholarship funding organizations to return funds as a result of
• scholarship program, which as you know is funded by corporations that are applying to a...

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So those programs are funded sustainably at the same level for three fiscal years.
• So when we first started the program, it was funded using our ESSER funding and federal funding.
• Programs like math intervention exist because of at-risk funding.
• Programs like math intervention exists because of at-risk funding.
• These are the programs that are now at risk due to funding cuts.

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation on strategic resource management in public education. LESC staff and PED officials argued that New Mexico has increased school funding, but local budgeting and planning remain fragmented and overly compliance-driven. They described long-term pressures including declining enrollment, rising special education costs, falling cash balances, changes in federal funding, and leadership turnover, and said schools need more intentional multi-year planning tied to student outcomes. They also outlined the many disconnected planning requirements schools must complete, compared New Mexico’s current approach with Ohio’s three-year budget forecasting model, and recommended continuing multi-year appropriations, adding $2.5 million for state grants in the unified application, and directing LESC, LFC, and PED to develop a long-term financial planning proposal. PED said it is working to reduce administrative burden through school accreditation, a unified application for federal and state funds, and internal alignment of guidance and coaching, with pilot schools reporting time savings and better alignment. Members raised concerns about four-day school weeks, the burden on small districts, the need for outcomes and return on investment, and whether the state should move toward a two-year or three-year planning cycle; staff clarified that the proposal was to streamline or eliminate redundant requirements, not add another layer. The committee then received an update on the Educator Fellows program. PED described it as a Grow Your Own pipeline that employs candidates as supplemental educational assistants while they work toward licensure, providing salary, benefits, paid leave, mentoring, and coursework support. Officials said the program helps address teacher shortages, improves student-to-teacher ratios, increases workforce diversity, and supports the Martinez-Yazzie action plan. They reported 370 current fellows across 86 LEAs and about 180 schools, with many fellows being people of color, first-generation college students, or second-career educators; roughly 85 are expected to become certified this year. A local HR director from Belen testified that the program has been especially valuable in small communities, where fellows are already rooted in the community and several have moved into teaching roles. Members asked about high school recruitment, tuition, retirement and benefits, the relationship to the Higher Education Department’s Grow Your Own scholarship, and the role of university partners. PED said fellows choose among accredited higher education partners, the program is separate from the scholarship but complementary, and the state is also building an apprenticeship model and seeking to expand the program to more LEAs, though some districts are on a waiting list because of funding and local match requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• To see more categorical programs funded with the COLA as well.
• institutions the flexibility to direct funds to the actual programs that need to get funded.
• would bring the total program funding up to $55 million.
• , 65 through the current program and 13 are non-grant funded today.
• funded by the higher education student housing grant program.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing focused on California Community College budget proposals. Chair Alvarez opened by emphasizing the system’s role in access, transfer, workforce training, and serving more than 2 million students, while also noting persistent challenges in enrollment, persistence, transfer, and graduation. Public commenters and system representatives broadly supported COLA, enrollment growth funding, deferred maintenance, student support block grants, and additional flexibility for districts facing uncertainty. The first major panel covered the student-centered funding formula, COLA, and enrollment growth. The Department of Finance said the Governor proposes a 2.43% COLA ($230.4 million) and 0.5% enrollment growth funding ($30.4 million). The LAO said the COLA was reasonable and recommended funding at least the proposed growth amount, citing uneven enrollment recovery and regional differences. The Chancellor’s Office supported both proposals and asked for additional changes, including using the greater of current-year or three-year average for apportionments and lifting the 10% local enrollment cap, arguing these would better fund growing districts. Members questioned how the formula works, whether SCFF is improving outcomes, and how much additional funding would be needed under different growth scenarios. The committee then reviewed categorical program COLAs, Rising Scholars, career education proposals, IT proposals, and student housing. The Governor proposed a 2.43% COLA for selected categorical programs ($31.9 million). For Rising Scholars, the Governor proposed $30 million ongoing and removal of the cap on participating colleges; the LAO urged waiting for outcome data before doubling funding, while the Chancellor’s Office said the program is serving more students and supports equity for justice-impacted students. On career education, the Governor proposed $50 million for credit for prior learning and $50 million for a career passport; the LAO supported more reporting on credit for prior learning but recommended rejecting the career passport as too undefined, while the Chancellor’s Office supported both. On technology, the Governor proposed $162.5 million for a common cloud data platform and $168 million for a common ERP system; the LAO said both were premature or lacked sufficient planning and recommended rejection, while the Chancellor’s Office argued they would improve real-time data, security, and systemwide efficiency. The committee also heard an update on student housing: the administration said the 2024 shift to a lease-revenue bond model remains in progress for 13 approved projects, with 11 still active, and members asked about withdrawn projects and possible use of any returned funds. No votes were taken, and several items were held open for further discussion and May Revision updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• funding for local journalism, especially when the program is structured to be paired with matching funds
• We ended up funding 100 small nonprofits through that program.
• the critical Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund programming.
• Our program is specially funded, and so there is no General Fund impact for this request.
• So programs like these really support me, and I want to continue to advocate for funding for youth programs

Summary: The committee opened with the State Controller’s Office May Revision requests, including funding for Fiscal book-of-record stabilization, a Broadcom IDMS licensing adjustment, the California State Payroll System, ACFR reporting automation, and $3 million for unclaimed property outreach. Testimony emphasized progress on Fiscal becoming the state’s accounting book of record in July, faster ACFR publication, and the move to electronic unclaimed property claims. Members asked about the size of the unclaimed property fund and how quickly money is transferred to the General Fund; the Controller’s office said about $15 billion is held, with most excess transferred regularly, and the LAO noted the fund is the General Fund’s fourth-largest revenue source. No concerns were raised by Finance or the LAO, and the item was closed after no public comment. The committee then heard the administration’s proposal to tax prewritten digital software and software-as-a-service, with Finance saying it would modernize sales tax treatment and raise an estimated $450 million General Fund and $560 million local revenue in 2026-27. The LAO supported modernizing the tax but suggested broader digital goods coverage and a business-use exemption; industry and taxpayer groups opposed the proposal, warning of higher costs for consumers and businesses. Members also heard CDTFA’s administrative request tied to the proposal, plus a separate CDTFA budget reduction reflecting lower operational needs; that reduction was presented as a savings item and drew positive reactions. Next, the committee considered federal conformity for “Trump accounts,” which would align California tax treatment with federal rules for tax-deferred children’s accounts and avoid tracking burdens for families. The LAO recommended approval, and the item drew no opposition. The committee also heard a proposal to cut the first-year $800 annual business tax to $400 for LLCs, LPs, and LLPs; Finance argued it would lower startup costs and encourage new business formation, while the LAO said the benefit was not well targeted and could subsidize entities that would form anyway. Members discussed the policy tradeoff, and public commenters split between support for small business relief and concern about revenue loss. The final major revenue item was a permanent business tax credit limitation, capping credits at the greater of $5 million per corporation or 50% of pre-credit liability, while excluding the low-income housing tax credit and personal income tax credits. Finance said it would raise significant revenue from large profitable corporations, and the LAO said it was a reasonable option but noted it would mainly affect the R&D credit and could have future implications for programs like California Competes. Public testimony was sharply divided, with business groups opposing the cap and anti-poverty advocates supporting it as a way to recapture revenue. The committee also heard FTB’s CalFile realignment request, which would return most of the direct-file-related resources to the General Fund while retaining a smaller staff to improve CalFile, and the California Arts Council’s request to reauthorize the Keep Arts in Schools voluntary contribution fund, which members and advocates supported despite relatively modest annual donations. The hearing continued with GoBiz proposals on civic media funding, CA RISE reappropriation, and a semiconductor facility reversion, with the LAO supporting the latter two and members raising questions about the civic media program’s scope, outreach, and inclusion of broadcast and ethnic media.

Transcript Highlights:

• Licensing and Certification Program Fund reserve.
• Taken together, these aggregated funds represent approximately 70% of the total funding CDSS program
• We also urge the committee to reconsider funding and ensure continued funding for various programs at
• consider funding and ensure continued funding for various programs to DSS that help individuals who
• IHSS relies on county social Funding and program operations.

Summary: The joint Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused first on long-term services and supports for older adults, especially the “forgotten/overlooked middle” who earn too much for Medi-Cal but cannot afford private long-term care. Administration witnesses from DHCS, the Department of Aging, and Social Services described Medicare’s limited long-term care coverage, Medi-Cal’s role, the elimination of the Medi-Cal asset test, and ongoing state studies and listening sessions on financing options. Testimony from advocates and researchers emphasized rising homelessness among older adults, the need for better navigation and coordination across health, aging, housing, and social service systems, and short-term policy steps such as share-of-cost reform, housing stability supports, and protecting home- and community-based services. Members highlighted the need for a coordinated, no-wrong-door approach and asked for the most impactful budget investments to address affordability and homelessness risk. The second major topic was the Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS) program. CDA reported that CBAS helps participants remain in the community, that 304 centers operate statewide serving about 42,000 people, and that demand is stable but access gaps remain in some regions. DHCS explained that a 2024 rate increase authorized by SB 159 became inoperative after Proposition 35, and that a separate 10% rate change on the fee schedule was the result of a DHCS system error; the department said it would not require recoupment, though managed care plans may act under their contracts. CBAS providers and advocates warned that reimbursement rates have not kept pace with costs, that several centers have closed, and that clawbacks could trigger more closures. They requested $74.8 million ongoing General Fund to close part of the rate gap and preserve the program, while members expressed concern about closures and the cost savings of keeping people out of more expensive institutional care. The hearing then moved to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) and statewide collective bargaining. CDSS reviewed provider recruitment and retention efforts, including electronic timesheets, direct deposit, and the now-completed IHSS Career Pathways program, which trained more than 59,000 providers. CDSS also summarized its AB 102 workgroup report on statewide versus regional bargaining, saying the final report would be sent to the Legislature soon and that statewide bargaining appeared more viable than regional bargaining, though it would require clear statutory scope and major fiscal changes. The department estimated that each $1 per hour statewide wage increase would cost at least $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion annually. Labor advocates argued that IHSS wages, benefits, and training are too inconsistent across counties and called for statewide bargaining, consumer participation, and ongoing state funding. County representatives supported stronger wages but cautioned that counties need protection from new costs and administrative burdens, and consumer advocates warned that moving bargaining to the state could weaken local consumer control and the program’s consumer-driven structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this includes funds for the line program.
• We're better aligning additional program costs for advanced courses with funding provided through the
• The money for the programs, we fund it at a greater level than what it actually costs.
• The money for the programs, we fund it at a greater level than what it actually costs.
• with our private schools not receiving funding because of the new changes in the program.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee heard presentations on the Senate’s proposed 2025-2026 budget, SPB 25-200, totaling $117.4 billion. Chair Hooper and committee chairs highlighted major spending priorities including a 4% raise for state employees, continued health insurance contributions, investments in water quality, transportation, education infrastructure, and workforce development, along with reductions tied to long-vacant positions. Education funding was a major focus, with increases for K-12 public schools and scholarships, higher education workforce programs, nursing initiatives, tutoring, and university performance funding. Health and human services, criminal and civil justice, transportation/economic development, and agriculture/environment budgets were also outlined, including Medicaid, mental health, corrections staffing, affordable housing, beach restoration, citrus recovery, and water projects. Members then questioned several budget choices, especially K-12 funding. Senators Polsky and Smith raised concerns that the Senate’s AP and dual enrollment funding changes could disadvantage public schools, while Burgess argued the budget preserves the money in the FEFP and gives districts more flexibility rather than reducing support. Questions also addressed voucher availability, school stabilization funding, and the My Safe Florida Home program. The committee adopted 171 consent amendments and three late-file amendments, then approved SPB 2500 as a committee bill. It also favorably reported implementing and conforming bills for state employees, retirement, natural resources, judgeships, K-12 education, higher education, and health and human services, along with SB 7022 on Florida Retirement System contribution rates and elected-officer DROP options, CS/SB 1320 on the Resilient Florida Trust Fund, SB 7014 ending the Mediation and Arbitration Trust Fund, SB 7028 on cancer research, CS/CS/SB 170 on nursing home quality and oversight, CS/SB 168 on mental health diversion and behavioral health data, SB 114 creating an insurance and risk management research center at FSU, and SB 180 on emergency preparedness and post-storm recovery. Most bills were reported favorably with little or no opposition, though SB 180 drew discussion about local-government authority after storms and the need to balance recovery speed with local safety and planning concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• On the other side, it was making sure that we had programs that were funded in the greenhouse gas fund
• On top of that to fund this program.
• funds to specific programs like the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Fund.
• But there are other programs that we fund, such as just the overall funding that we provided to that,
• We ask that you fund fully the Tier 3 GGRF programs and make sure that transit continues to get the funding

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee and Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 held a joint hearing on CARB’s proposed amendments to the cap-and-invest regulations. Opening remarks from senators emphasized the 2025 reauthorization of the program through AB 1207 and SB 840, and focused on whether CARB’s April revisions faithfully implement legislative intent while balancing climate ambition, affordability, leakage prevention, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). Several senators raised concerns that the proposal could reduce GGRF revenues, weaken funding for transit, affordable housing, wildfire prevention, drinking water, and other community programs, and shift too much support toward industry. Others stressed the need to protect businesses and consumers from higher costs and to avoid leakage and refinery closures. Senator Cortese’s statement, read into the record, warned that the proposal could jeopardize transportation funding commitments. CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez said the amendments respond to legislative direction and public comment, and described four main changes: increased electric bill credits, a larger manufacturing decarbonization incentive (MDI), additional compliance support for industry, and removal of post-2030 allowance allocations from the current rulemaking. She said the proposal keeps the cap aligned with 2030 and 2045 targets, maintains affordability protections, and is intended to reduce emissions while minimizing leakage and supporting in-state jobs. CARB staff also said the MDI would have guardrails, require applications and reporting, and be tied to emissions-reducing facility upgrades. The Department of Finance explained that GGRF revenue estimates are highly uncertain and are updated periodically based on auction data. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the amendments are significant and could materially affect environmental ambition, industry support, utility credits, and GGRF revenues. LAO highlighted that the MDI could add allowances above the cap, potentially reducing certainty that 2030 targets will be met, and noted that the proposal appears to shift more allowances to industry and fewer to GGRF than current regulations. LAO also said the proposed GGRF estimate of about $8 billion through the decade could be insufficient to fully fund lower-priority tiers of programs. In questioning, senators pressed CARB on whether the proposal would raise consumer costs, whether free allowances or MDI funds would actually lower prices at the pump, how leakage is measured, and whether the Legislature’s budget assumptions would need to be revised before final action. No votes were taken during the hearing; the discussion was informational and focused on questioning CARB and fiscal staff ahead of the board’s planned May 28 consideration of the amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• funding programs.
• This allows individuals to apply for funds that can help them at a post-secondary level, programs that
• I will go through the list of the funding opportunities that you have provided through these grant programs
• . ...fund to expand equipment and the needs of our automotive technology training program, which we will
• The success and growth of our programs would not be possible without the essential support of state funding

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education received an overview of Florida’s career and technical education (CTE) system from Chancellor Kevin O’Farrell, who described the state’s CTE pathways, program types, enrollment and completion growth, quality audit metrics, and the Master Credentials List used to identify credentials of value. He highlighted record postsecondary CTE enrollment and completions, strong statewide performance in talent attraction, and several funding tools supporting expansion, including Open Door, the Florida First Responder Scholarship, Workforce Development Capitalization grants, Perkins funding, CAPE performance incentives, and apprenticeship grants. Senators asked about eligibility for Open Door and first responder aid, top industry certifications, and the teacher apprenticeship initiative. A panel of college and technical school leaders then described how state and federal funding has supported local program growth and facility expansion. Santa Fe College, Palm Beach State College, North Florida Technical College, Lake Technical College, Florida Gateway College, and Manatee Technical College each cited increases in enrollment, high placement or licensure pass rates, and new or expanded programs in nursing, welding, CDL, automotive, manufacturing, public safety, and apprenticeship. Several speakers emphasized partnerships with hospitals, employers, school districts, and local governments, and noted that grants helped fund equipment, renovations, and new training hubs. Palm Beach State also raised a request to broaden line funding beyond nursing to other health science fields, and multiple presenters asked for more flexibility, multi-year support, and continued or increased funding to sustain growth. Members discussed broader challenges, including the difficulty of sustaining grant-funded growth after initial awards, the lag between enrollment growth and funding formulas, and alignment problems for dual enrollment and technical programs with high school schedules. Senators also noted the need to balance support for high-demand core programs like nursing and welding with the ability to respond quickly to emerging industries such as AI and space. The meeting ended with no formal action beyond adjournment after Senator Davis moved to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's usually narrow enough that we know this is the program, this is what they want to fund, and this
• Air districts rely on that funding to operate their share of the program, which is very substantial.
• But as the funding comes in for those programs, we do see an increase in the market.
• Is there any funding available at other programs or agencies that we can move around?
• We can't leave those five air districts without any funding for their program, so we would support funding

Summary: The committee hearing focused heavily on CARB’s broad trailer bill request for regulatory fee authority. Finance and CARB argued the proposal would let CARB develop fees to recover reasonable costs for implementing and enforcing regulations, while the LAO recommended rejection because the authority was too broad, could apply to an entire division of code, and would delegate core legislative taxing/fee-setting power without enough guardrails. Members from both parties raised concerns about the breadth of the authority, accountability, affordability impacts, and whether the Legislature would be put in an up-or-down position after CARB had already developed regulations. CARB responded that fees would still go through a budget change proposal and legislative approval before collection, and cited existing examples such as transport refrigeration units and commercial harborcraft fees. The committee then reviewed CARB’s request for permanent resources to implement SB 905 on carbon capture, utilization, storage, and carbon dioxide removal. CARB said the Legislature had previously authorized limited-term positions and funding, but it had struggled to recruit and retain staff with specialized regulatory and technical expertise, and that the work had included pre-rulemaking contracts, technology review, and permit-related preparation. Members questioned the pace of work, the use of limited-term positions, and whether additional permitting authority would be needed. CARB said it hoped to begin rulemaking later in the year if permanent resources were approved. Members also discussed the cap-and-trade spending plan, noting lower-than-expected auction revenues but higher interest earnings, and the need to monitor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and possible May Revision changes. The committee then heard overviews of the zero-emission vehicle package, the Community Air Protection Program, demand-side grid support, and e-bike incentives. CARB described ongoing investments in community-based transportation equity, drayage trucks, harbor craft, and other clean technology demonstrations, while members pressed on affordability, program duplication, and whether enough funding was being directed to incentive programs. No formal votes were taken during the portion provided, and the chair repeatedly indicated that the hearing was intended to surface concerns for later budget negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:43.560> is fund the healthcare access fund is fund the healthcare access fund is largely
• I healthcare access Fund in general fund I healthcare access Fund in general fund I mentioned<00:
• 24 to 25% of medical assistance funding 24 to 25% of medical assistance funding funding<00:10:39.000
• MinnesotaCare is another program that is a federal-state program. It's not the Medicaid program.
• <00:32:08.320> to program which is a set of programs to program which is a set of programs

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The meeting was an informational walkthrough for the Health Finance and Policy Working Group, focused on committee structure, budget basics, and major health-related accounts and programs. Staff explained the roles of House Research and House Fiscal, then reviewed key funds used by the committee, including the general fund, government special revenue fund, federal funds, the health care access fund, remediation account, and drinking water revolving fund. They also outlined the committee’s main budget areas, noting that medical assistance is the largest general fund item and that the Department of Health is a substantial agency funded by a mix of federal, general fund, and special revenue dollars. A major portion of the presentation covered subsidized health coverage programs. Staff described Medical Assistance (Minnesota’s Medicaid program) as an entitlement for eligible Minnesotans, with no premiums or cost sharing, and explained its managed care and fee-for-service delivery systems. MinnesotaCare was presented as a separate federal-state basic health program for people who are not eligible for MA, with income limits, premiums for adults age 21 and older, and cost-sharing requirements; staff noted that federal premium tax credit changes affect MinnesotaCare premium ranges. The presentation also summarized MNsure’s role in the individual market and in determining eligibility for premium tax credits, cost-sharing reductions, MinnesotaCare, and MA. The committee also received an overview of health-related licensing boards and occupational regulation. Staff said Minnesota has 16 health-related licensing boards, funded mainly through the state government special revenue fund and subject to legislative appropriation, and explained that health occupations may be regulated by the Department of Health, the Office of Emergency Medical Services, or the boards under chapter 214. Interstate licensure compacts were briefly noted as a way to ease practice across states. No bills were debated and no votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• with general revenues, federal funds, and various program support.
• It's funded with general revenue, federal funds, and various program support.
• It's funded with general revenue, federal funds, and various program support for a total appropriation
• It's funded with general revenues, federal funds, and various program support.
• is funded through general revenues, federal funds, and various program support at $12.7 million.

Summary: The committee heard a series of Arkansas Department of Human Services budget presentations and questions, beginning with the Secretary’s Office and then the Division of Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health Services. Staff described the divisions’ appropriations, funding sources, and major programs, including senior centers, Meals on Wheels, mental health grants, substance abuse treatment, community alcohol safety, the Medicaid tobacco settlement program, and crisis stabilization units. Members raised concerns about flat or limited funding for senior services, the use and tracing of federal block grants, the lack of a funding source for the veterans’ mental health grant, and the mechanics of the community alcohol safety and treatment programs. The committee also discussed patient benefits funds at state facilities, transportation for senior center clients, and whether some special-language appropriations or fund balances should be revisited. Executive recommendations were adopted for the divisions considered. The committee then reviewed the Division of Children and Family Services and the Division of County Operations. Questions focused on foster care growth, adoption subsidies, professional fees tied to staff training and onboarding, vacancies, the Children’s Trust Fund, and TANF subgrants. Members asked about the reduction or elimination of TANF funding to child advocacy centers and other subgrantees, and DHS explained that prior reserves had been spent down and that the department was now trying to live within the annual TANF block grant and rebuild reserves. County operations questions also covered summer EBT, SNAP employment and training, the farmers’ market program, and the expected impact of a federal SNAP administrative match change, which DHS estimated would increase state costs by about $24 million annually, with roughly $18 million affecting the current year because the change begins October 1. Executive recommendations were again adopted. Finally, the committee heard from the Division of Developmental Disability Services and the Division of Medical Services. DDS testimony covered vacancies, staffing shortages, human development center construction and repairs, the reopening of the Boonville work training program, and funding for infant infirmary and child/family life programs. Medical Services testimony covered the Medicaid program, the current FMAP rate, the Our Kids B CHIP program, Medicaid payments to schools, nursing home distress funding, and large appropriation lines used to provide flexibility for claims and potential facility closures. Members asked for more detail on school Medicaid payments, reserve balances, and why some appropriations were much larger than actual spending. In each division, the committee moved and adopted Executive REC after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• As we think about funding protections that are expiring this year, programs being funded to attendance—if
• So the program is state-funded to help support families have access to preschool statewide.
• to better align funding with program costs.
• This investment is our primary funding source to support quality in state preschool programs.
• CDSS did receive this funding through the Department of Education when programs were at CDE.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on California’s child care, preschool, and transitional kindergarten oversight, with chairs emphasizing the state’s Master Plan for Early Learning and Care and the need to break down silos between programs. CDSS and CDE reported progress toward the plan’s goals, including universal access to TK for all four-year-olds next school year, expanded access for low-income three-year-olds, and more children with disabilities being served in state preschool. They also noted ongoing work on quality rating/review reform, funding structure changes, and the need to address rates, workforce shortages, and federal uncertainty around Head Start. Testimony from advocacy groups and providers largely supported expanding access while simplifying the system. Children Now, Every Child California, and the California Budget and Policy Center argued that California still has uneven access, especially for infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds, and urged investments in mixed delivery, inclusion, full-day options, and a cost-of-care rate methodology. Every Child California recommended consolidating part-day and full-day contracts, streamlining eligibility priorities, making the two-year-old option permanent, and funding staffing incentives. Parent testimony highlighted how child care gaps and county-to-county transfer delays can disrupt work, safety, and children’s stability, and providers described low reimbursement rates, the need for health and retirement benefits, and support for delinking subsidy rates from private pay. The second panel addressed universal transitional kindergarten. The Learning Policy Institute reported rapid TK expansion, with most districts now offering TK, but said access still depends on facilities, staffing, and whether programs are available at all school sites. The Department of Finance said the governor’s budget would fully implement TK by adding funding for all eligible four-year-olds and lowering the adult-to-child ratio from 12:1 to 10:1. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the administration’s enrollment and cost assumptions were optimistic and estimated lower TK enrollment growth and lower costs for the ratio change. CDE supported the expansion and urged continued funding for UPK coordinators, teacher development, and mixed-delivery planning grants. Members questioned facilities shortages, staffing competition, and how to ensure TK expansion does not displace CSPP or Head Start classrooms. No formal votes or actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Funding for the naloxone distribution program, funding for the provision of naloxone, is an administration
• coverage unwinding, or to programs related to the opioid settlement fund.
• coverage unwinding, or to programs related to the opioid settlement fund.
• We're a co-funded program and the only harm reduction program serving Nevada County, California.
• Please vote to continue co-funded funding and allow harm reduction programs to continue saving lives.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• And lastly, we're disappointed in the reduced funding for the child care. bridge program, a program that
• So because the child care programs at DSS receive those funds, it's a requirement for those programs
• of the residual program and into other programs for their funding.
• It maintains $50. million dollars in funding for the program.
• We also ask you to fully fund the California Food Assistance Program.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Program and the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program.
• The successful and accurate funding of these scholarship programs, as well as the overall system of pre-K
• As previously noted, pursuant to state law, SFOs received their funds for the FES program each quarter
• As previously noted, pursuant to state law, SFOs received their funds for the FES program each quarter
• transportation funds in a general revenue fund.

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education met for its first meeting of the 2025 session to hear the Auditor General’s operational audit on 2024-25 school funding accountability challenges, focused largely on the Family Empowerment Scholarship and its interaction with the FEFP. Deputy Auditor General Matthew Tracy described rapid growth in scholarship enrollment, timing mismatches between scholarship payments and public-school funding calculations, delayed membership survey processing, weak cross-check and recoupment procedures, inconsistent handling of parent survey responses, and limited documentation for withholding and returning funds. The audit said these issues contributed to funding inequities, duplicate-payment risks, and an unexpected draw on state education funds, and it recommended separating scholarship funding from the FEFP, aligning application windows with budget timing, strengthening controls and staffing, and creating clearer, documented recoupment and balance-limit processes. Committee members questioned whether current law gives the department and scholarship funding organizations enough authority and whether the system is effectively a pay-and-chase model. Several senators expressed concern about the lack of timely reconciliation, the size of the funds involved, and the absence of clear records showing how money was recovered or withheld. Adam Emerson, executive director of the Office of School Choice, said the department is working more closely with school districts and scholarship funding organizations, including pausing payments when districts identify students still enrolled in public schools, and said the office wants to improve the process. President Gates then previewed legislation he said would address the audit’s findings by funding Family Empowerment Scholarships as a separate FEFP categorical, expanding the Education Stabilization Fund, setting clearer application and acceptance deadlines, moving to monthly payments with eligibility verification before each payment, assigning student IDs for scholarship assistance, lowering SFO management fees, requiring annual audits, and requiring prompt return of audit-related funds. Public comment included a private-school attorney describing losses from unpaid scholarship amounts. Members generally supported the need for reform, with several senators saying the program should be preserved but better structured and more accountable. The committee adjourned after the discussion, with no vote taken on the legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also administer federally funded programs, namely the Get Ready program, which is funded through Federal
• the funds set aside for those programs the funds set aside for those programs exhausted<00:40:18.440
• The next program I'd like to talk about is a pilot program, a temporary funded program, and that's the
• 48:08.559> the temporary funded program and that's the temporary funded program and that's the
• limited funding that went out last year for the programs.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , to the Child Care Funding at the Texas Workforce Training Program, to Child Care Funding at the Texas
• Looking at a few of the programs that helped make this happen, for state funded programs.
• So we do have funding, so we manage our program based upon the funding that we have available.
• it or replacement funding. funding for it, then we'd have to cease that program.
• We expanded that fund to also cover a driver's education fund. programs.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those programs are very desperately needing funds.
• <00:17:25.280> funded wastewater grant loan programs funded wastewater grant loan programs
• and bond funding for this program.
• In and bond funding for this program.
• c> that and the funding for those programs that and the funding for those programs that was<00:35

Keywords: 1187, senate, all