Transcript Highlights:

• I want to just then quickly point out some of of our funding, financial funding programs. And Mr.
• What's unique about this program is the umbrella fund.
• Item number six, funding for rural health programs.
• are not federally funded are cost recovery programs.
• Fund, and this is another very critical program.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But sustaining and scaling those programs is going to take additional funding in the SEG because those
• and how you all can provide additional flexible funding in the SCG to sustain and scale those programs
• Similar to voucher programs, they involve the use of public education funds.
• Really interesting why we would not opt into a program that's going to provide funding for families to
• With respect to ESA programs, some data around what program funds are being used for.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those funds are being used towards programs that did not have research behind them, or programs that
• For the laboratory services program, this program requested a $1 million or 8.9% general fund increase
• The agency requested GROW funding in each of the programs.
• JCC with general fund, and they are also requesting To expand the funding for both programs.
• Program Fund to pilot new programs and initiatives and evaluate their outcomes before funding these

Transcript Highlights:

• And lastly, we're disappointed in the reduced funding for the Child Care Bridge Program, a program that
• the residual program and into other programs for their funding.
• the residual program and into other programs for their funding.
• It maintains $51 million in funding for the program.
• The $8 million is the ongoing funding for the program.

Summary: The hearing began with opening remarks on the Governor’s May Revision for child care and human services, with committee members and advocates stressing that the budget should not be balanced on the backs of low-income families, children, and providers. Legislative members and public witnesses strongly opposed the proposed suspension of the child care COLA, reductions to the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program, and the lack of codified rate reform tied to the alternative methodology. Several speakers also urged more support for providers affected by the Eaton fire and other disasters, and called for child care to be funded at the true cost of care and for additional slots to be restored. Administration, LAO, and Department of Education staff described the child care proposal as maintaining existing funding levels while adding administrative resources to prepare for federally required prospective payment changes and single-rate reform. The administration said the May Revision would suspend the 2025–26 COLA and reduce Bridge Program funding to align with utilization, while the LAO raised questions about the size and purpose of the proposed rate-reform and prospective-payment funding and recommended rejecting a Department of Technology exemption. CDE supported continued early education investments but said it would need additional resources if prospective pay were extended to state preschool, and it objected to a proposed reallocation of preschool funds for inclusive education grants. The committee then moved to the IHSS portion of the May Revision. DSS outlined five major proposals: capping provider work hours at 50 per week, eliminating IHSS for undocumented adults age 19 and older, shifting certain Community First Choice reassessment penalties to counties, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test as a conforming IHSS reduction, and automating the termination of IHSS when Medi-Cal eligibility ends. DSS also discussed funding to implement a federal HCBS access rule and a separate reassessment of IHSS administrative methodology that found counties would need additional administrative funding. Finance said the proposals were intended to slow program growth and improve sustainability, while the LAO said it was still analyzing the package and raised concerns about implementation, county workload, and the potential loss of services. Committee members and public commenters criticized the IHSS cuts, especially the overtime cap and the elimination of services for undocumented adults and people affected by the asset test. Advocates argued that IHSS workers and recipients depend on these services, that county administration is already underfunded, and that the proposals could destabilize vulnerable consumers. The chair closed by saying the committee would continue to fight for child care and would not pause on child care, and the meeting recessed before moving on to the remaining May Revision items.

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.
• We're a co-free funded program and the only harm reduction program serving Nevada County, California.
• Additionally, we know that certain programs were funded in last year's budget.
• These two programs fund more than 120 community health centers.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But it's also necessary because as we look at the General Fund, these programs, core safety net programs
• We want to thank the Legislature for fully funding the CalFood Program and funding universal school meals
• We want to thank the Legislature for fully funding the CalFood Program and funding universal school meals
• On the EPIC extension as a ratepayer-funded public-purpose program, we believe EPIC and similar programs
• for training hours on our apprenticeship program and funding for our pre-apprenticeship program to train

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee heard opening remarks on the 2025 Budget Act, which will be amended into AB 101 and SB 101 for floor consideration. Committee leaders described the budget as a difficult compromise shaped by a $12 billion deficit, federal funding uncertainty, wildfire impacts, and rising out-year costs, while emphasizing a balance between compassion and fiscal responsibility. Each budget subcommittee chair then summarized major actions in their areas, including health care, human services, education, climate and transportation, housing and state administration, public safety, and oversight/transparency. Key policy items included delaying or narrowing some of the Governor’s proposed cuts, especially in Medi-Cal and other safety-net programs; preserving funding for dental care, women’s health, family planning, hospice, long-term care, IHSS, and services for undocumented Californians; and maintaining or expanding child care, foster care, food banks, and CalWORKs-related supports. Education actions included additional Proposition 98 settle-up, reduced deferrals, support for TK-12, teacher recruitment, literacy, mental health, preschool slots, and restored funding for UC and CSU. Other major items included housing and homelessness investments, wildfire and disaster response funding, transit loans and greenhouse gas reduction fund support, Proposition 36 and VOCA-related public safety funding, and oversight measures on federal impacts and state efficiency. Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst staff said the package makes some of the same savings moves as the May Revision but relies more on internal borrowing and fewer reductions, leaving a smaller reserve than the administration’s plan but still maintaining roughly $11 billion in the rainy day fund. Members from both parties largely supported the package while raising concerns about long-term sustainability, Medi-Cal costs, reserve use, and the need for future revenue and program review. The committee adopted the subcommittee actions by roll call, 18-6, with the roll held open for absent members and additional comments continuing after the vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this includes funds for the line program.
• Veterans Program, and the Effective Access to Student Education, the EASE Grant Program. ...fully funding
• 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.
• with our private schools not receiving funding because of the new changes in the program.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee met for Budget Day and heard presentations on the Senate’s proposed 2025-2026 budget, SPB 25-200, totaling $117.4 billion. Chair Hooper said the plan reduces overall spending from the prior year, keeps strong reserves, includes a 4% pay raise for state employees, maintains employee health care contributions, and makes major investments in water quality, transportation, and education infrastructure. Committee chairs then summarized their budget silos, including K-12 education, higher education, health and human services, criminal and civil justice, transportation/tourism/economic development, and agriculture/environment/general government. Members asked questions mainly about school funding, AP and dual enrollment support, voucher and scholarship impacts, and the My Safe Florida Home program. The committee adopted a large consent package of amendments and then approved three late-file amendments: funding virtual college tours for high school students, funding the FSU Sunshine Genetics program, and providing money for the Port of Fernandina customs facility. The committee then voted to report SPB 2500, the General Appropriations Bill, as a committee bill. It also favorably reported SPB 2502 (implementing bill), SPB 2504 (state employees placeholder), SB 7022 (Florida Retirement System contribution rates and DROP changes), CS/SB 1320 (recreating the Resilient Florida Trust Fund), SPB 2506 (gaming compact revenue distributions, including water projects and rural lands), SPB 2508 (29 new judgeships), SB 7014 (ending the court mediation and arbitration trust fund), SPB 2510 (K-12 conforming bill), SPB 2512 (higher education conforming bill), and SPB 2514 (health and human services conforming bill). The committee also took up several policy bills. It approved SB 7028 on cancer research, creating grant parameters, reporting requirements, a five-year pediatric cancer research incubator, and the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute VisionGen Initiative. It approved CS/CS/SB 170 on nursing home quality, adding resident satisfaction surveys, medical director standards, safety culture reviews, electronic health record requirements, financial reporting penalties, and a study of best practices. It approved CS/CS/SB 168, the Tristan Murphy Act, which expands mental health diversion options, adds Hillsborough County to a forensic hospital diversion pilot, expands grant uses, and creates a behavioral health data repository. It also approved SB 114 creating the Florida Center for Excellence in Insurance and Risk Management at FSU and moving the public hurricane loss model there. The committee then began considering SB 180 on emergency preparedness and response, including a late-file amendment, but the transcript cuts off before final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's funded with general revenue, federal funds, and various program support.
• had any additional funding for that program.
• It's funded with general revenues, federal funds, and various programs support, and does fund the people
• It's funded with general revenues, federal funds, and various program support.
• It's funded with general revenue, federal funds, and various program support.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• While the budget does not propose new funding for homelessness programs, funding will still be available
• I remember an earlier overview of all the programs that we funded.
• Sorry, there's been no changes to that program. And how much is that program funded for?
• There's been no changes to that program, and how much is that program funded for?
• And so this would reduce funding for allocation 3 programs.

Summary: The subcommittee first heard an informational presentation on the May Revision’s proposed reorganization of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into separate housing-focused and consumer/business-focused entities. Administration officials said the split would improve oversight, streamline decision-making, and create a dedicated California Housing and Homelessness Agency with a new housing development and finance committee. The Department of Finance said funding was needed in 2025-26 to begin implementation, while the LAO recommended rejecting the proposal without prejudice because the Little Hoover Commission review was still pending and the plan would require ongoing General Fund costs. Members raised concerns about the timing, the lack of alignment with the budget process, and whether the reorganization would improve accountability for homelessness spending; several public witnesses supported the concept but stressed it could not substitute for new housing and homelessness dollars. The committee then took up the Department of Veterans Affairs. CalVet requested funding for phase three of its electronic health care record project and a trailer bill to preserve authority for federal background checks, but the May Revision withdrew requests for deferred maintenance and additional administrative support. The LAO noted deferred maintenance can prevent larger future costs, and the chair criticized the withdrawal of less than $1 million for veterans’ homes as short-sighted given existing repair needs. No vote was taken. Next, the Department of Housing and Community Development presented its budget. HCD said the May Revision provides no new affordable housing or homelessness funding, but does retain existing rounds of funding and proposes a $31.7 million reversion from undersubscribed housing programs. Members from both parties expressed concern about zeroing out ongoing housing and homelessness investments, especially for LIHTC, the Multifamily Housing Program, and HAP. HCD also defended its homelessness accountability and compliance work, saying the unit includes about 30 program staff and six attorneys, with three additional attorneys requested mainly to handle public records and litigation workload. Public commenters largely opposed the lack of new funding and urged continued support for housing and homelessness programs, while some supported the reorganization and accountability efforts. Finally, the committee heard Go-Biz proposals. The administration requested authority to increase funding for a federal trade program match if needed, plus reappropriations for administrative funds tied to the Containerized Ports Interoperability Grant Program, zero-emission vehicle operations, and the Women’s Business Center Enhancement Program. It also proposed withdrawing the Cal Competes grant request and reverting remaining funds from the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund. The LAO said Cal Competes is generally effective but could be cut as a budget solution, while warning that the performing arts fund was close to awards and should be considered carefully. Members objected to pulling back committed funds for performing arts organizations and questioned why the state would withdraw support after applications had already been submitted.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are you talking general funding for all programs.
• With no funding for career and technical education programs in the way that you funded over the last
• And again, these out-of-school time programs fund programs at schools, so before and after school programming
• So this cut in CTE would actually cut program funding.
• We also fund our advanced placement programs and other things.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The funding in the first year would fund startup costs, which would include programming in our revenue
• 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.
• We ended up funding 100 small nonprofits through that program.
• Our program is specially funded, and so there is no General Fund impact for this request.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a series of May Revision budget items, beginning with the State Controller’s Office. SCO described requests for Fiscal Book of Record stabilization, payroll system implementation, ACFR reporting support, and unclaimed property outreach funding. Members focused on the Fiscal system’s July go-live, the improved timeliness of the ACFR, and the unclaimed property program’s roughly $15 billion balance and outreach efforts. The Department of Finance and LAO raised no major concerns, and the item was closed after discussion of how the new outreach funding would be used. The committee then considered several revenue proposals. Finance presented a proposal to tax pre-written digital software and SaaS, with estimated General Fund gains of $450 million in 2026-27 and $900 million ongoing; LAO suggested broader digital tax changes and a business-use exemption, while industry groups opposed the measure as a tax on essential digital tools. CDTFA also presented an administrative request tied to the software tax, and later a $10 million budget reduction reflecting lower operational needs. The committee then heard a federal conformity proposal for new children’s tax-deferred accounts, which LAO supported, and a proposal to cut the first-year LLC/LP minimum tax from $800 to $400, which Finance said would aid small business formation but LAO argued was poorly targeted and would reduce revenue. Another major item was a permanent business tax credit limitation beginning in 2027, capping credits at the greater of $5 million per corporation or 50% of pre-credit liability. Finance said it would raise about $850 million in 2026-27 and more in later years, while LAO noted it would mainly affect large firms using the R&D credit and could also touch California Competes and other programs. Public testimony split sharply between business groups opposing the cap and advocates supporting it as a progressive revenue measure. The committee also heard FTB’s CalFile realignment proposal, which would retain a smaller staff to continue improving the free filing system and return most of the prior funding to the General Fund. The hearing concluded with the California Arts Council’s request to reauthorize the Keep Arts in Schools voluntary contribution fund, which brings in about $221,000 to $266,000 annually for arts grants and teacher stipends. Members and advocates supported the item but also urged larger arts funding, including the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund. The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development then presented proposals for the California Civic Media Program, CA RISE reappropriation, and a reversion of unused Chips for America facility funds; LAO supported the latter two but was cautious about new civic media spending. Members raised concerns about the civic media program’s scope, including the exclusion of broadcast and the lack of a specific ethnic media set-aside, while GoBiz said funds would begin going out in the fall if approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• programs, which is allocated through a specific funding model.
• We are funding $4 million for a new direct-buy program.
• We are funding for. the Canadian drug importation program.
• We are funding $4 million for a new direct-buy program.
• Is that total funding for the voucher programs, and what is the difference of that funding from last

Summary: The Senate began with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved into floor consideration of the 2026-2027 budget. Appropriations Chair Hooper presented Senate Bill 2500, describing a $115 billion budget that reduces overall spending from the prior year, maintains reserves, and includes a 3% pay raise for state employees and 5% raises for state law enforcement, firefighters, correctional officers, and park rangers. Committee chairs then outlined major spending in their areas, including K-12 education, higher education, health and human services, criminal and civil justice, transportation/tourism/economic development, and environmental and agricultural programs. Highlights included increased funding for school scholarships and safety, workforce and university programs, Medicaid and child welfare, corrections operations, affordable housing, rural communities, Everglades and water quality projects, and infrastructure. Members then asked detailed questions about several budget items. Senators sought clarification on the Emergency Management Trust Fund, arts and cultural grants, Florida Forever land acquisition versus conservation easements, teacher salaries, charter school capital outlay funding, EASE grants, New College funding, DOC inmate counts and reimbursement, lottery staffing, concealed weapons licensing positions, election security funding, iBudget waiver support, ADAP funding, Medicaid hospital rate reductions, and scholarship and enrollment supplements in K-12 education. Chairs explained that some reductions reflected technical shifts or right-sizing, that some funds were being moved below the line for better tracking, and that several items—such as ADAP and corrections operations—would likely remain conference issues with the House. After questions, the Senate substituted House bills for the budget and implementing measures and adopted amendments placing the Senate language onto the House vehicles to prepare for conference. The chamber passed the budget-related bills and several conforming measures, including bills on retirement, fuel taxes, the state agency law enforcement radio system, court trust funds, judgeships, and K-12 and higher education conforming changes. Votes on the major bills were overwhelmingly unanimous or near-unanimous, and the Senate repeatedly voted to accede to the House’s request for conference on the substituted bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have to fund these programs both in a bond and also in the budget.
• We respectfully urge you to restore funding and keep this lifeline program in place.
• program, the CERNA Farm Worker Program, and the homeless housing rescue fund.
• we also invest funding for the portfolio reinvestment program and our state LIHTC program.
• So I encourage the Senate to also fund the portfolio reinvestment program, the CERNA Farm Worker Program

Summary: The subcommittee heard an extensive presentation on the administration’s housing reorganization proposal, which would centralize multifamily affordable housing finance under the new Housing Development and Finance Committee (HDFC) and align it with the Governor’s trailer bill language. Administration officials said the plan is intended to create a one-stop application and award process, reduce duplicative timelines and costs, and pair state subsidy with private activity bonds and federal tax credits more efficiently. They also described proposed changes to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, including shifting a larger share of funding toward housing-related awards while preserving a portion for sustainable communities investments. The Legislative Analyst’s Office generally supported the streamlining concept but recommended changes to the proposed bond set-aside timing and urged flexibility for integrated applications and future reporting on demand. Senators, especially Senator Cabaldon, raised concerns that the proposal could weaken the original climate-and-transportation purpose of the sustainable communities program and that the reorganization would be undercut by the lack of new housing production funding in the budget. The item was held open without a vote. The committee then received a report from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee on federal and state housing tax credits. Staff explained that the federal H.R. 1 change lowering the bond-financing threshold from 50% to 25% greatly expanded the number of projects able to use the 4% federal tax credit, allowing California to fund many more projects and units. They also described the state low-income housing tax credit as an important gap-filling tool for projects that still need additional subsidy, and noted existing set-asides for rural, homeless, at-risk, and extremely low-income projects. Members discussed rehabilitation as well as new construction, and the item was informational only. Finally, the Civil Rights Department reported on the effects of federal civil rights policy changes and on three programs facing expiration: California vs. Hate, the Community Conflict Resolution Unit, and Investigations and Conciliation Enhancement. Director Kevin Kish said federal cuts and policy shifts have reduced support for fair housing and other civil rights functions, while CRD’s caseload has grown from about 8,700 open matters a year ago to more than 12,000, with a six-month wait for interviews despite overtime triage efforts. Senators expressed strong support for continuing the programs and concern about the broader federal rollback of civil rights enforcement. The department said it is using overtime, intake triage, and outreach partnerships to manage the workload and direct Californians to appropriate state, local, and nonprofit resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• programs, and without stable funding, implementing these programs could impact affordability through
• I just wanted to echo our support for prioritizing GGRF funding programs for programs that clean up our
• We should also be funding the Wood Smoke Reduction Program and the Clean Cars for All program.
• We should also be funding the Wood Smoke Reduction Program and the Clean Cars for All program.
• This program does fund affordable housing and sustainable transportation with a multitude of programs

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• 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
• had any additional funding for that program.
• 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 budget presentations and took executive recommendations on several Department of Human Services divisions, including Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health Services; Children and Family Services; County Operations; Developmental Disability Services; and Medical Services, with most divisions showing little or no significant change in total appropriations. Staff and agency witnesses repeatedly explained that many large appropriations are maintained for flexibility, federal matching requirements, or contingency needs, even when actual spending is much lower than the authorized amount. Members also raised concerns about staffing vacancies, long-vacant budgeted positions, and the use of excess appropriation authority across DHS. In Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health, members questioned federal funding levels for mental health and substance abuse grants, the status of senior centers and Meals on Wheels, the Medicaid tobacco settlement program, community alcohol safety grants, and the veterans mental health grant. Agency officials said federal block grants are largely committed, that senior center funding had been delayed by shutdown timing but was now back on track, that the tobacco settlement program had been moved internally within DHS, and that the veterans mental health appropriation remains unfunded. Senators also criticized the adequacy of support for seniors and asked for more detail on how transportation, meal services, and local contributions are funded. In Children and Family Services, members asked about rising appropriation levels, foster care and adoption subsidies, professional fees, the number of children in foster care, and the Children’s Trust Fund. DHS said increases reflect added flexibility for residential treatment, adoption subsidies, and prevention services, while the foster care population has remained fairly steady at about 3,400 children. The Children’s Trust Fund was described as supporting primary prevention programs such as Baby and Me and community schools, and members asked whether it could be administratively combined with other efforts. Questions also covered TANF subgrants, with DHS explaining that it had reduced outside subgrants after discovering over-obligation and was rebuilding reserves. In County Operations, members focused on the summer EBT program, SNAP employment and training, the farmer’s market program, and the state’s TANF reserve position. DHS said summer EBT is still being funded through temporary appropriations because it is a newer program, SNAP employment and training is largely federally funded and may expand under a pending policy change, and TANF reserves were drawn down after prior over-obligation but are now being stabilized. In Developmental Disability Services, members asked about vacancies, human development center staffing, facility construction funds, and the Booneville work program, and DHS said the program has reopened and staffing recruitment continues. In Medical Services, members asked about FMAP, the Our Kids B CHIP program, school-based Medicaid reimbursements, nursing home distress funds, and several large appropriation lines that far exceed actual spending; DHS said these are maintained for claims payment, nursing home receivership contingencies, and other flexibility needs. Each division reviewed was adopted by executive recommendation after questions concluded.

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:

• program, the CERNA Farm Worker Program, and the homeless housing rescue fund.
• also invest funding for the portfolio reinvestment program and our state LIHTC program.
• also invest funding for the portfolio reinvestment program and our state LIHTC program.
• So I encourage the Senate to also fund the portfolio reinvestment program, the CERNA Farm Worker Program
• So I encourage the Senate to also fund the portfolio reinvestment program, the CERNA Farm Worker Program

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the Governor’s housing reorganization proposal and trailer bill language that would consolidate several affordable housing finance programs under the new Housing Development and Finance Committee (HDFC). Administration officials said the plan is intended to create a one-stop application and award process, reduce duplication, and pair state subsidy with private activity bonds and federal tax credits so projects can move from award to construction more quickly. The proposal would also shift some positions and reallocate portions of the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program and other housing funds. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the concept has merit but raised concerns about the proposed bond set-aside floor and recommended more flexibility and earlier reallocation of unused bonds. Several senators questioned the structure and, especially, the proposed changes to the climate-related ASIC program, arguing that it could weaken the program’s original transportation-and-housing integration and that the budget lacks enough direct funding for core housing production programs. The item was held open. The committee then received an update from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee on federal tax credit changes and state housing finance tools. Staff explained that federal H.R. 1 increased the 9% low-income housing tax credit allocation and reduced the bond-financing threshold for the 4% credit from 50% to 25%, allowing California to finance many more projects. They reported that emergency regulations were adopted quickly to implement the new federal rules, resulting in awards for 195 projects and more than 25,000 units in the 4% program, while the 9% program funded 58 projects and nearly 3,000 units. Members discussed the importance of state enhanced low-income housing tax credits, with committee questions focused on how much additional leverage state credits provide and how they help fill remaining financing gaps. The final portion of the hearing focused on the Civil Rights Department’s response to federal civil rights policy changes and on three programs facing the end of limited-term funding: California vs. Hate, the Community Conflict Resolution Unit, and Investigations and Conciliation Enhancement. Director Kevin Kish said federal civil rights enforcement has been weakened by closed offices, shuttered programs, and reduced support for fair housing organizations, while CRD’s open caseload has grown from about 8,700 to more than 12,000 matters. He said the department is using overtime, triage, and process reengineering to manage the surge and to direct people to the right services. Senators expressed strong support for continuing the programs and concern that California is being asked to do more with less as federal protections erode. No votes were taken on the informational items, and the committee discussed the vote-only budget requests for CRD separately.

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.