Transcript Highlights:

• Right now, the budget is in conference committee.
• The earmark request was for $300,000.
• He requested $1 million, and that was ultimately not accepted.
• The earmark request was for 300.
• He requested $1 million, and that was ultimately not accepted.

Summary: The commission reviewed the House and Senate budget outcomes for maternal and perinatal health-related amendments as the budget moved into conference committee. On the House side, amendments for community-based perinatal mental health grants, implementation of maternal health law, the Tuff Center for Maternal Health Advancement, private insurance coverage for midwifery care, a midwifery workforce development fund, and birthing center grants were not adopted. On the Senate side, several items were adopted, including funding for the Mass Now menstrual equity program, a $1 million earmark for the Neighborhood Birth Center, and Senator Rausch’s out-of-state resident reproductive health training pilot, while other proposals such as the midwifery workforce fund, a health education trust fund, and the Tuff Center request were not accepted. Members discussed whether the commission should send a letter to the conference committee. Several speakers supported doing so, but emphasized that the commission’s core mission is perinatal and postpartum mental health and that the budget wins, while important, did not explicitly fund PMAD or perinatal mental health priorities. The commission voted unanimously to send a letter highlighting the broader maternal health wins while also urging continued investment in perinatal and postpartum supports. The meeting also covered commission vacancies, including a vacant House minority seat, several governor-appointed seats, an open Senate co-chair appointment, and other commissioner slots. Members suggested possible future appointees or organizational representatives, including people connected to the Children’s Trust, addiction-affected families, and midwifery. The meeting ended with brief updates on upcoming minutes, future presenters, and the end of the legislative session, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I know that there's a budget request to be able to continue that program.
• So the next reassessment is going to occur in the cycle between this budget and the next budget.
• Cycle between this budget and the next budget. So we'll start in the fall, potentially.
• And finally, two more: the governor's farm-to-school budget request that provides modest assistance through
• Another solution that I want to highlight is a budget request for $14 million for CalFresh outreach.

Summary: The committee held its second hearing on CalFresh enrollment and nutrition, focused on the effects of H.R. 1 on eligibility, administration, and food access in California. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Social Services outlined major federal changes: expanded work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, narrowed eligibility for certain lawfully present non-citizens, and new state and county cost-sharing for both administrative and benefit costs. Officials said about 665,000 Californians could lose benefits under the work requirement, roughly 72,000 non-citizens could lose eligibility, and California could face hundreds of millions to billions in new costs depending on error rates and implementation details. DSS described its mitigation efforts, including county guidance, trainings, automation, outreach materials, and coordination with workforce programs, while county representatives argued the workload is larger than current funding assumptions and that staffing and training needs are urgent. Members also heard from a CalFresh recipient, Lauren Keltz, who described how benefits helped her family during her daughter’s medical crisis and how a clerical error led to the loss of food, health, and cash assistance, contributing to homelessness and food insecurity. Her testimony was used to underscore the consequences of administrative errors and benefit disruptions. Grocery and agriculture representatives said CalFresh is not only an anti-hunger program but also a major economic driver, with benefits spent locally at grocery stores, farmers markets, and farm stands. They warned that cuts would reduce demand for fresh food, hurt independent grocers and small farmers, and increase reliance on food banks, while urging continued support for market match and farm-to-food-bank programs. In the second panel, advocates and local administrators emphasized the human and operational impacts of the federal changes. The California Immigrant Policy Center called for expanding the state-funded California Food Assistance Program to cover more immigrants excluded by H.R. 1. A San Francisco eligibility worker and a San Diego county administrator said the new rules will add substantial casework, require more client outreach and exemption screening, and strain already limited staffing. Justice in Aging stressed that CalFresh is a key anti-hunger tool for older adults and people with disabilities, especially as housing and health costs rise, and supported outreach funding for seniors. Throughout the hearing, members discussed the need for state funding, better automation, and stronger county and community partnerships to reduce disenrollment and protect access to food.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any requests for leave? Members present. Chair, is there a quorum? Any requests for leave?
• Request. You're recognized.
• Request. You're recognized.
• Request. You're recognized. Senate Bill 30. Yes. Representative Ray, for what purpose? Request.
• Request. Representative Duke, for what purpose? Request. You're recognized.

Summary: The House convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, established a quorum, granted several leaves, and received gubernatorial approval notices for multiple fiscal-session measures. The chamber then referred House Bill 1034 back to the Joint Budget Committee so pay raises could be stripped out and cybersecurity/bank-fee funding handled later. House Bill 1103, increasing the homestead property tax credit by $75, passed 94-0. Members then considered several budget amendments and appropriations. Amendments to House Bills 1007, 1022, 1036, and 1064 were adopted, and Senate Bill 76, a $2 million appropriation for county extension office capital improvements, passed 87-7. A batch of appropriation bills passed, but several individual bills failed, including House Bills 1023, 1035, 1053, and 1066. House Bills 1089 and 1090, supplemental appropriations for pregnancy crisis centers and waste tire cleanup, both passed. House Bill 1093, a corrections reappropriation bill that excluded use of funds in Franklin County, also passed 94-0. The most extensive debate centered on House Bill 1100 Amendment 1, which set out the RSA and one-time funding package. Supporters described major allocations for corrections, state police, LEARNS Freedom Accounts, Medicaid, vehicle purchases, and a proposed $300 million economic-development site-preparation and road package tied to a confidential project. Opponents criticized the secrecy, size, and policy approach of the incentive, while supporters argued it could bring jobs and broader economic benefits. The amendment passed 54-36-3. The House also passed Senate Bills 8, 16, 30, 63, 67, and 73, while Senate Bills 41 and 59 failed, and Senate Bill 10 passed after being briefly set aside for clarification. The chamber adjourned to 1 p.m. the next day, with committee meetings announced for budget and house management.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:01.760><c> for</c><00:04:02.000><c> the</c> request in under budget finance for the request
• With respect to our budget requests for fiscal year 26-27 for PSD healthcare, we requested 35 positions
• </c><00:13:01.360><c> requests</c><00:13:02.639><c> um</c> With respect to our budget requests um With
• </c><00:28:32.720><c> requests</c> are other um maybe other budget requests are other um maybe other
• Is the additional training that you mentioned budgeted, included in this budget request?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Another example is in our waiver request.
• for us to get that waiver request through the process.
• our budgeted headcount has not changed.
• And you can see we're requesting 31.2.
• But for this year, we are requesting a flat $52.8 million.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> budgets and trying to keep those budgets budgets and trying to keep those budgets balanced.<00:40
• At first, I would like to request a roll call. Roll call having been requested. Do I see 15 hands?
• </c> to request a roll call. to request a roll call.
• Obviously, it's a huge budget.
• The clerk will close the roll. request. So if there could be a future request.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, let's go to the water quality budget. Thank you. Okay, let's go to the water quality budget.
• That was at the request of the commission themselves. Okay.
• comments about the budget. ...budget and opening it up to the public for anybody wishing to testify or
• make comments about the budget.
• to testify or make comments about the budget?

Bills: S0314, S0530, S0576, S0800, S0990, S1078, S1440, S1568, S1588, S1614

Keywords: payment stablecoin, financial regulation, anti-money laundering, state oversight, digital currency, financial services, Florida lottery, state lottery, lottery tickets, lottery retailer, Department of the Lottery, Division of Security, ball machine, lottery vending machine, instant tickets, online lottery tickets, major procurement, vendor disclosure, performance bond, retailer bond

Transcript Highlights:

• There are good things in this budget.
• But no budget ever is.
• Yet today we're being asked to vote for another structurally deficit budget, a budget that spends more
• Madam Speaker, I stand here today voting on my 10th budget, and I'm pleased to vote for this budget.
• This budget does that.

Summary: The House met in extended session with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, quorum call, and a series of journal, committee, and Senate bill reports. Members also received several referrals and Senate messages, and the Speaker signed multiple bills already prepared for the Governor. The chamber then took up a long slate of measures, largely budget-related and conference/concurrence items, with repeated roll-call votes and several brief floor remarks for and against the bills. Among the major actions, the House passed or concurred in a number of Senate bills addressing fiscal code and budget implementation, abusive towing practices, telemarketing robocalls and caller ID spoofing, prostitution penalty changes, veteran notification procedures, the cosmetology licensure compact, solar decommissioning, Korean War Veterans Armistice Day, E85 flex fuel definitions, local road transfers, civil penalties for unlicensed commercial driving schools, and trailer sales. The House also adopted House Resolution 580 designating July 18, 2026, as Piping Plover Day. Most of these measures passed overwhelmingly, many by unanimous or near-unanimous votes. The most significant debate centered on House Bill 2400, the General Appropriations budget for fiscal year 2026-2027, and House Bill 1505, the education-related budget implementation bill. Supporters described the budget as a bipartisan compromise that funds adequacy and tax equity for schools, public safety, mental health, roads and bridges, veterans, seniors, and workforce programs while avoiding broad-based tax increases. Opponents argued the budget used accounting maneuvers, deferred spending, and was structurally unbalanced. After extended debate, the House concurred in the Senate amendments to HB 2400 by a 167-35 vote and to HB 1505 by a 172-30 vote. The House also considered House Bill 2559, which included Commonwealth property conveyances and a controversial provision affecting Penn State branch campus properties. A motion to recommit the bill failed, and the House ultimately concurred in the Senate amendments by a 105-97 vote after members debated property rights, labor effects, and the future use of the campuses. The session concluded with the Senate later concurring in several House amendments, the Speaker signing the final bills, and the House adjourning until September 9, 2026, unless recalled sooner.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think in general, the $17.5 million budget request is, I think we are, we've taken the comments that
• You know, if this budget request is to be approved, these will be the important features we will be requesting
• But I think the human touch, we could definitely integrate should the budget request be approved, and
• request a more tactical approach to this.
• And I suspect the request from Mr.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on how H.R. 1’s new federal work and community engagement rules will affect Medi-Cal and CalFresh, especially for Californians with behavioral health needs, people experiencing homelessness, and justice-involved individuals. The Legislative Analyst’s Office outlined the scope of the changes, including Medi-Cal work requirements beginning in January 2027 and CalFresh changes beginning in June 2026, and estimated large potential coverage losses if people cannot document exemptions or comply with reporting rules. State departments said they are still awaiting some federal guidance but are already building implementation plans, data matching, outreach campaigns, and system changes to reduce disruption and automatically identify exemptions where possible. Department of Health Care Services and Department of Social Services officials described efforts to use existing data, CalSAWS, and cross-program coordination to streamline exemption screening, including for medical frailty, serious mental illness, substance use disorders, and student status. They said outreach will include text messaging, webinars, county training, and community-based partners, while also acknowledging that many people will still need direct worker contact. County representatives stressed that the new rules will create major administrative burdens, require significant new staffing, and could lead to coverage loss if counties are not adequately funded. They urged the Legislature to release the $20 million in current-year General Fund for CalFresh implementation and to consider a much larger county augmentation next year. Assembly members pressed the administration on outreach strategy, county funding, consistency across counties, and how to avoid harming eligible people through overly aggressive implementation. They also asked about coordination with universities, CDCR, and community-based organizations, and about how exemptions would be documented for mental health and substance use conditions. Department officials said they are working with counties, education institutions, and correctional agencies, and that they are trying to align Medi-Cal and CalFresh rules where possible, but not all federal definitions match. Public commenters from legal aid, counties, labor, and public hospitals warned that work requirements do not increase employment, will worsen food insecurity and health outcomes, and will strain county systems unless the state provides more funding and support.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the budget request is broken up into two different buckets.
• I am here in strong support of the $26 million budget request to protect access to transgender health
• Please approve this $26 million budget request so that California's protections remain meaningful.
• Asking for $26 million out of $300 billion budget is a small request for something fundamental to human
• I strongly, strongly support access to gender-affirming health care and this $26 million budget request

Summary: The joint hearing focused on access to gender-affirming care in California, with opening remarks from the subcommittee chairs emphasizing the importance of protecting transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex Californians and asking for decorum during public comment. The first panel from the Department of Justice, Department of Managed Health Care, and Department of Health Care Services described existing state protections, including nondiscrimination rules, privacy protections, shield laws, and Medi-Cal and commercial coverage requirements for medically necessary gender-affirming care. State officials also outlined ongoing litigation against federal actions and against hospital decisions to end or restrict care, including the Rady Children’s case and challenges to federal proposed rules and declarations affecting Medicaid, Medicare, and provider participation. Members questioned state agencies about why some hospitals that had stopped providing care had not been sued, how network adequacy is measured, whether the state can track actual access to gender-affirming care, and what legislative changes might strengthen protections. DMHC said it monitors complaints and independent medical reviews but does not track gender-affirming care as a separate provider category or collect utilization data, while DHCS said Medi-Cal continues to cover medically necessary care and that the state is preparing for possible federal rule changes. Finance staff said the previously approved $15 million for gender-affirming care was still being implemented through Covered California. The second panel featured a physician, clinic leaders, a parent, and a transgender teen describing how care is delivered and the effects of hospital closures and federal pressure. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy described the history and medical basis for gender-affirming care, said minors need parental consent for medical interventions, and argued that care should be individualized and supported by families. Providers and families testified that hospital closures and insurance barriers have disrupted continuity of care, forced patients to travel farther, and shifted demand to community clinics that lack sufficient funding and contracting support. Several witnesses asked the Legislature to provide new funding, strengthen insurance enforcement, and stabilize access to care for transgender youth and families.

Transcript Highlights:

• If we just make this a product of budget discussions and we pass a budget at the same time we pass it
• A couple of things regarding the budget: we will do a budget this year.
• It will be a balanced budget.
• A couple things regarding the budget. We will do a budget this year. It will be a balanced budget.
• Requested to speak.

Summary: The joint House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees met to hear identical Arizona tax conformity bills, HB 2153 and SB 1106, which would conform state tax law to the federal Internal Revenue Code as of Jan. 1, 2026, with some provisions applied retroactively to tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bills exclude the federal senior deduction for those 65 and older, the higher state and local tax deduction, and the new car loan interest deduction, while including a $6,000 retirement-income deduction for taxpayers 60 and older, a $6,000 Roth IRA contribution deduction, a higher dependent tax credit, and a deduction for child and dependent care expenses above the federal credit. The JLBC fiscal note estimated a $441.3 million general fund revenue loss in FY 2026, and members discussed that this was roughly the same as full conformity because the bill’s adjustments offset some of the federal changes. Bill sponsors and supporters argued the measure should be enacted early to give taxpayers and tax preparers certainty before filing season, noting that the Department of Revenue had already issued forms assuming conformity and that delay could force amended returns. They said the bill reflects a negotiated package that preserves most of the federal tax relief while tailoring it for Arizona, especially by lowering the senior deduction age to 60 and replacing the auto loan deduction with family-focused provisions such as the higher child credit and child care deduction. The Arizona Society of CPAs and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club supported the bills, emphasizing the need for early conformity and fewer filing complications. Opponents, including Save Our Schools Arizona, the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, Opportunity Arizona, and several individuals, argued the package would reduce state revenue, worsen the structural deficit, and mainly benefit higher-income taxpayers and corporations. Some witnesses criticized the inclusion of federal school-choice-related provisions and warned about uncertainty around future federal guidance, while others said the bill should not move ahead before the budget process. Members also debated whether taxpayers would need to file amended returns if the state later diverged from the Department of Revenue forms, and whether the senior and child care provisions were targeted or equitable. The transcript ends during public testimony, with no final committee vote or action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• act and $10 million from the 19-20 budget act.
• Principal Program Budget Analysis, Department of Finance, Kathy McCloud, Finance Budget Analyst, Department
• each and every request, or does the department find itself having to say no to some requests because
• The California Highway Patrol requests a permanent budget augmentation of $5 million and 12 positions
• By securing the requested... resources which are outlined in the governor's 2025 and 2026 budget, the

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It pays for the whole budget for them. I prepared you a five-year budget review.
• It pays for the whole budget for them. I prepared you a five-year budget review.
• It pays for the whole budget for them. I prepared you a five-year budget review.
• </c> in the county budget. in the county budget.
• Those requests are less.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Dedicated Funds met to review the House budget provision that would impose a 5% administrative charge on a broad list of dedicated funds, with some exemptions. Members discussed the House approach versus the Senate’s more general approach of leaving the governor discretion over which funds could be charged. The chair explained the committee was hearing from agencies about any legal, contractual, or practical reasons their funds should be exempt, and the agenda was expanded to include several departments and written submissions from others. The Department of Education testified first, identifying several funds it said should be exempt: a printing revolving fund that is funded by transfers rather than fees; teacher certification, which is self-funded by educator licensing fees and would require an immediate fee increase if charged; a vending stand set-aside tied to the federal Randolph-Sheppard program and subject to federal approval and vendor committee procedures; and a public school infrastructure/safety account, where most revenue is transferred from the education trust fund or general fund rather than generated by fees. Members questioned the department about the effect on school safety projects and whether the fee would simply reduce the number of projects completed each year. The Veterans Home asked for exemptions for three funds: a donation benefit account used for recreational activities and quality-of-life expenses for residents, a small memorial trust fund whose interest supports veteran activities, and a resident member account that holds veterans’ personal income such as Social Security and pensions. The department argued the charge would reduce donations, cut services, and effectively function like an income tax on vulnerable veterans. The Banking Department also requested exemption for its consumer credit administration license fund, saying it is used to keep exam fees low and is expressly intended by statute to reduce costs on regulated businesses; it said the 5% charge would undermine that framework and could eventually force higher fees. The Department of Justice began testimony on its dedicated funds, starting with the medical legal investigative fund, which pays for death investigations and related services under statute and without general fund support. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the committee mainly heard testimony and asked questions about the practical and legal effects of applying the administrative charge.

Transcript Highlights:

• rates are properly adopted, budgets are properly recorded in the accounting records, budget monitoring
• For budget hearings, the town council adopted the 2023-2024 fiscal year budget by resolution rather than
• Budget reporting and monitoring: the town lacked procedures to monitor budget and actual revenues and
• no budget amendments were adopted.
• However, the grantor, the Department of Commerce, did not respond to our requests or town requests as

Summary: The Joint Legislative Auditing Committee first heard a long-running audit finding involving Daytona Beach’s unexpended building permit funds, which have exceeded the statutory limit for several years and were reported at $10.8 million in the most recent audit. Mayor Derek Henry and city staff said the city has analyzed the fund, adopted a corrective action plan, waived more than $5.5 million in permit and inspection fees over several periods, and used some excess funds for a training facility rehabilitation and a proposed City Hall expansion. Committee members repeatedly questioned whether the city was simply trying to spend down the money, raised concerns about the legality and necessity of proposed expenditures, and asked about interest earnings, truck purchases, and the lack of detailed tracking for training-facility use. The city said an Attorney General opinion allows construction of a new building for building-code functions but not purchase of an existing building, and that if the city cannot comply through permissible construction it would have to return the funds. No vote was taken, but members expressed strong frustration and urged the city to resolve the issue quickly and lawfully. The committee then received the Auditor General’s presentation on the Town of Greenville, which found 31 findings and described pervasive control failures, possible fraud, waste, and abuse. The findings covered elections and quorum issues, conflicts of interest, late or missing financial disclosure forms, related-party transactions, poor meeting notices and minutes, council involvement in day-to-day operations, missing ethics training, budget and accounting deficiencies, weak bank reconciliations, improper utility billing and rates, grant compliance problems tied to a grocery store project, personnel and compensation issues involving the town manager, late vendor payments, weak procurement and P-card controls, vehicle-use and property-control problems, public records issues, and IT/fraud-policy weaknesses. The auditor said the review focused mainly on October 2022 through February 2024 but went back further for some grant-related matters. Greenville’s mayor and staff said the audit reflected actions of a previous administration and that the current council and staff have already adopted seven new policies to improve procurement, financial controls, inventory management, grant oversight, and ethics. They said the town has a new manager and clerk, that the former manager was terminated, and that the town referred matters to FDLE, which is investigating. Committee members asked about the manager’s salary increase, severance, P-card use, and whether the town should consider consolidation or dissolution. The mayor said the town is on a better path, that most of the prior leadership has been voted out, and that the town is working with auditors and an outside accounting firm to correct the problems.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here with members of the department to discuss the DCCA's budget request for fiscal biennium 2025
• The roof project began in early 2024, as mentioned in a previous budget request.
• budget requests um and summaries of our budget requests um and as<00:02:47.840><c> noted</c><00:02:48.159
• > was</c> budget request this building was budget request this building was constructed<00:04:18.160>
• request no this is for an pu um budget request no this is for an additional<00:29:07.640><c> um</c><

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Ways and Means and Commerce and Consumer Protection heard the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs present its biennium budget request for fiscal years 2025 to 2027. Director Nainoa Ando said the department’s requests were primarily special-fund ceiling increases to meet operational needs. Major items included an additional $12 million to complete the King Kamehameha V Post Office building roof project after hidden deterioration and water intrusion were discovered, plus funding related to fringe benefits and central services assessments. The department also outlined requests for a new medical compact implementation cost, an auditor position, an engineer position, and a captive insurance IT modernization project. A significant portion of the discussion focused on the Office of Consumer Protection’s landlord-tenant call line and public service access. Senators raised concerns that callers often reach voicemail, are told to leave a message, and sometimes are referred to look up the law themselves. DCCA said the Oʻahu line is staffed by one full-time employee backed by two to three investigators, with one investigator each on Maui and Hawaiʻi Island, and that calls are tracked in a case management system. The department said it plans to add one more Oʻahu staff position through a transfer from another division and that a new call-center/web system with time tracking is expected to go live in the summer. Members also discussed a possible bill related to Pearson VUE nursing certification testing, with one senator describing the burden on neighbor-island nursing graduates who must travel to Honolulu for a one-hour test. The senator said she intended to introduce legislation after receiving no response to repeated outreach. DCCA did not take action on that proposal during the hearing. For the PUC-related requests, the department explained a one-time $1 million request for outside consulting tied to Maui wildfire-related filings, including wildfire safety mitigation and hazard mitigation plans, and a separate $900,000 request through the Consumer Advocacy Division to hire consultants for review and analysis. The committee also discussed a captive insurance IT modernization request, which DCCA said would replace manual and spreadsheet-based processes with a cloud-based system to better handle filings, payments, and workflow; no vote or final action was taken on the budget items during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• been requesting documents from you all for a very long time.
• We requested forms because states have regular reporting forms and requested those of the State Library
• We did receive requests to ensure that type of coordination.
• and taxpayer dollars, that was the request.
• And we honored that request. We honored that request and we engaged in parallel to them.

Summary: The committee held a follow-up informational hearing on the State Library’s oversight of the statewide Imagination Library program, focusing on how state funds were used by the Strong Reader Partnership (SRP) and whether the program complied with statutory requirements. Chair and Senator Grove repeatedly questioned State Librarian Greg Lucas about delayed document production, the State Library’s decision to allow SRP to continue spending $4.8 million after the 2024 budget changes, and the lack of clear accounting for how many books were actually delivered to children. Lucas said the State Library had sent one demand letter, relied on counsel’s advice, and ultimately received bank statements, invoices, and narrative reports that he said were satisfactory, though he acknowledged the committee should have been given the documents sooner. A major issue was whether SRP and its vendors used state funds for lobbying or influence efforts related to AB 157/SB 157, despite contract language prohibiting lobbying. The committee highlighted invoices and emails involving ChangeCraft and SAGE Strategies that appeared to coincide with legislative activity, while SRP representatives said their work was communications, stakeholder outreach, and board-directed advocacy, not lobbying. Members of SRP also defended their vendor selections and invoicing practices, explaining that the organization was in startup and transition mode, had multiple financial vendors for checks and balances, and was working to build infrastructure, local partnerships, and multilingual outreach capacity rather than directly buying books. The hearing also scrutinized specific expenditures, including roughly $581,000 to Shipyard for marketing and web/digital work, $110,000 to Lotus Financial Solutions, and a $5,000 grant to United Way of the California Capital Region. Senators argued the invoices were vague and the deliverables were not evident, pointing to a simple website, limited social media presence, and no clear evidence that some advertised campaigns ever went live. SRP witnesses said the work was part of a phased plan to establish a statewide foundation and that some assets and documentation had not yet been provided to the committee. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with the chair emphasizing the need for tighter oversight, clearer documentation, and better accountability for taxpayer funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• the request to the Commission.
• Any request for remote participation or any disapproval of a member's request for participation shall
• Perhaps we need a budget amendment as well going forward.
• So that's a poor way to budget savings.
• So that's a poor way to budget savings.

Summary: The Virginia Disability Commission held its first meeting of the year on June 18, established a quorum, and introduced members. Senator Barbara Favola was elected chair and Delegate Amy Laufer was elected vice chair, both unanimously. The commission also reviewed and unanimously approved its electronic/remote participation policy, which mirrors last year’s policy and allows limited remote participation under Virginia FOIA rules. Staff then reviewed a package of 14 disability-related bills that passed last session and were signed into law. Topics included disabled veterans’ vehicle registration fee exemptions, open captioning requirements for movie theaters, guardianship/conservatorship order forwarding, service dog team definitions, education and transition planning for students with disabilities, Blue Envelope and driver communication training for law enforcement and driver education, deferred disposition and jury service protections, voting rights in guardianship cases, expansion of the Virginia Human Rights Act, continuation of a DD waiver eligibility change, and DMAS training authority for autism competency checklists. Members discussed implementation concerns, especially making the Blue Envelope/driver communication program more visible and considering a follow-up letter and DMV presentation. The commission then adopted its interim work plan unanimously, with discussion of possible presentations on DMAS and Medicaid waivers, DBHDS telehealth training implementation, SCHEV and VDOE transition planning, transition from institutions to community settings, criminal justice reform, transportation and parking accessibility, adult-sized changing tables, and school accessibility. Members also suggested adding EVV concerns, seclusion and restraint, rare disease issues, and insurance coverage problems for needed medications. Public commenters urged the commission to address burdensome EVV requirements for family caregivers, improve accessibility for local government meetings and documents, and explore a standardized credential/career pathway for direct support professionals. The chair said follow-up work would be assigned on EVV and implementation issues, and the meeting location would move to the Senate side of the Capitol going forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• such request to the Commission.
• for remote participation or any disapproval of a member's request for Any request for remote participation
• Perhaps we need a budget amendment as well going forward.
• In the budget around some of these topics.
• So that's a poor way to budget savings.

Keywords: Disability Commission, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> we'll be requesting in the next budget we'll be requesting in the next budget cycle.<00:02:58.800
• </c><00:21:04.400><c> request</c> and include it in our budget request and include it in our budget request
• request submit a uh consolidated budget request for<00:47:33.040><c> higher</c><00:47:33.280><c> education
• So going forward into the next biennial budget request, we may not have that grant.
• /c><00:53:58.160><c> have</c><00:53:58.319><c> that</c> budget request, we may not have that budget request

Keywords: The livestream event for this meeting failed before the meeting was finished. This copy was pulled from backups and is reposted in it's entirety., 958, all

Summary: The committee met to review KHEAA’s student aid programs ahead of the upcoming biennial budget. KHEAA officials outlined the agency’s role administering state grants and scholarships, emphasizing that net lottery proceeds are statutorily dedicated to student financial aid after a literacy appropriation. They focused on the College Access Program (CAP), Kentucky Tuition Grant (KTG), and KEES, and explained that the FAFSA simplification changes significantly expanded eligibility for Pell and CAP recipients. KHEAA said the General Assembly’s additional funding this biennium allowed CAP to be fully funded, and that FY25 spending for CAP reached about $232 million for roughly 72,000 students, up from about 55,000 recipients the prior year. Officials said they are watching current-year application trends closely and expect a clearer funding picture by late fall as awards are actually disbursed and enrollment data comes in. Members asked about how CAP eligibility works, the difference between applicants and recipients, and whether KTG is tied to Pell eligibility. KHEAA explained that CAP is essentially aligned with Pell eligibility, while KTG uses a different need formula and is limited to private colleges in Kentucky. They also noted that schools verify final eligibility after KHEAA’s initial review of application data. Questions about the FAFSA simplification act and federal changes led KHEAA to say they do not expect major effects on state grant and scholarship programs, though federal student loan changes may affect students, especially at the graduate level. The committee also discussed KEES, which KHEAA said has been fully funded since its creation, and dual credit/work-ready scholarships. KHEAA reported that dual credit participation continues to grow and that FY25 spending for dual credit and Work Ready Kentucky totaled about $26.4 million, compared with a $13.1 million appropriation, with transfers from Work Ready used to keep dual credit fully funded. Officials said they will seek growth funding for dual credit in the next budget because the program has expanded and now includes the work-ready component under one statute. Members asked about transferability of dual credit courses and whether students actually use the credits toward degrees; KHEAA said it does not have hard data on every credit’s transfer, but it is seeing positive trends in bachelor’s completion and more high school graduates earning associate degrees. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the July 15, 2025 meeting minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> um plans 2025 budget um plans 2025 budget um<00:03:01.239><c> so</c><00:03:01.440><c> let</c><00
• </c><00:20:03.120><c> a</c> Christian woman who was requesting a Christian woman who was requesting a
• And so we have no other budget requests.
• And so we have no other budget requests.
• Commissioner, as you know, we appreciate the careful budgeting that you're doing here and your request

Keywords: 1187, senate, all