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:

• 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:

• 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:

• , 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

Transcript Highlights:

• P YOU HAVE A COST CATEGORIES AND DIFFERENT PROGRAM TYPES THAT OBLIGATE THE FEFP FUNDS TO BE SPENT IN
• IT'S IN THE STATUTE AND ASSIGNS LOW, MEDIUM, AND HIGH FUNDING WAGED ALL THE PROGRAMS.
• PROGRAM WE ARE CALCULATING BASED ON DIFFERENTIAL COSTS ASSOCIATED TO THAT FUNDING.
• . >> THIS IS THE FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAM FUND IT.
• SO THERE IS A FUNDING MODEL FOR THE PROGRAM FUND THAT EXISTS IN THE LOG RIGHT NOW AND HERE IT IS, 101184

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, and the private activity bond program is going to be funded administratively. How?
• Both programs are funded through application fees and then reservation fees.
• We thank the Senate for including funding for these programs.
• We thank the Senate's proposal for including funding for these programs.
• Our coalition can Funding for affordable housing programs and homelessness programs as well.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision proposals focused on housing, homelessness, and related administrative changes, and took no votes, holding items open for later action. Item 1 would realign staff positions and resources as part of the Governor’s housing and homelessness reorganization, including shifting two Cal ICH positions to HCD, moving one Cal ICH position for communications/external affairs, and authorizing a chief deputy director at the new Housing Development Finance Committee. Administration witnesses said the changes were technical and net zero-cost, while the LAO recommended approval but asked for clarification on funding for the chief deputy. Several senators questioned whether the staffing shifts would weaken Cal ICH’s homelessness work and whether adding communications capacity was appropriate without new housing funding. Item 2 proposed creating a $100 million Disaster Rebuilding Fund at CalHFA, with $56 million General Fund and $44 million in existing National Mortgage Settlement funds, to support disaster-impacted homeowners through tools such as loan loss guarantees and interest rate buy-downs. CalHFA said the fund would help homeowners bridge the gap between insurance proceeds and rebuilding costs and would work through approved lenders. The LAO raised concerns about the lack of alternatives in the proposal, the broad discretion left to CalHFA in program design, and the General Fund cost. Senators pressed for more detail on eligibility, equity safeguards, lender oversight, and how many homeowners would actually benefit, with some warning the proposal was too open-ended and could miss the most vulnerable households. Item 3 addressed trailer bill language for HAP Round 7, including a proposed $500 million General Fund allocation tied to new accountability measures, pro-housing designation requirements for 14 large cities and 11 counties, local match requirements, streamlined system performance metrics, and recapture/reallocation of unspent funds. HCD said the proposal would avoid a new application process by treating Round 7 as additional disbursements of Round 6 and would provide technical assistance to jurisdictions. The LAO and several senators questioned the timing, the burden of pro-housing designation and local match requirements, the vagueness of some standards, and whether the proposal would delay rather than speed up funding. Members also debated whether the trailer bill preserved or weakened existing homelessness accountability metrics and whether the approach was too complicated given local budget pressures and ongoing homelessness needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:09:49.320> are program funds directly as they are program funds directly as they are eligible
• Maybe I'll hold my question then, because it does have to do with funding on federal funds on other programs
• Maybe I'll hold my question then, because it does have to do with funding on federal funds on other programs
• funds the national school lunch program funds the national school lunch program which<00:29:48.399
• funds support implementation the funds support comprehensive<01:03:24.279> program<01:03:24.760

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee met to hear a Minnesota Department of Education presentation on federal education funding and the potential effects of federal actions on those dollars. Chair Kunesh framed the discussion around concerns about threats to the U.S. Department of Education and noted that federal funds make up about 10% of Minnesota’s education budget, or roughly $1.4 billion. Senator Lang pushed back, emphasizing that 90% of school funding comes from state and local sources and urging the committee to focus on state mandates and how to pay for them. New member Senator Clark introduced himself and said he would teach ethics or running if he were a teacher. Department staff explained that federal education dollars are divided between entitlement/formula funds and competitive/discretionary grants. They said Minnesota receives federal money through established systems and that the department is seeking clarity about how federal changes might affect the flow of funds, oversight, and program administration. They also outlined Minnesota’s legislative review process for federal funds, which includes several pathways such as the governor’s biennial budget, supplemental budget submissions, legislative advisory committee review, and expedited review processes when needed. The presentation then focused on ESEA Title funding, especially Title I. Staff said Title I is one of the largest federal education programs in Minnesota, with about $200 million in current funding, and supports 476 local education agencies. They described how funds are allocated through Minnesota’s North Star accountability system and Compass support structure, based on measures such as poverty, graduation rates, and state assessment performance. Examples of allowable supports included professional development, attendance initiatives, reading curriculum, training, and peer coaching. Senators asked whether executive action could affect these funds and whether the money flows directly to districts or through the state; staff responded that they would avoid speculation and would continue explaining the different funding streams and oversight structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• While the budget does not propose new funding for homelessness programs, funding will still be available
• Those programs are funded beyond the 3.5 billion except for the local. The PLHA program.
• The lack of funding in the HAP program and the May revise.
• Sorry, there's been no changes to that program. And how much is that program funded for?
• And so this would reduce funding for allocation three programs.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, yes, our general fund budget has... ...programs that we have that draw down federal funds.
• As you finalize GGRF expenditures, we ask that you fully fund the Tier 3 programs and restore funding
• in the capital investment program, as well as the zero-emission transit capital funding program.
• The program is officially out of funding. There will be no new money left in the CalHome program.
• So this program is officially out of funding. There will be no, it's not just pausing funding.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 109, the Budget Act of 2026, and related discussion of the legislative budget agreement. Committee staff and the Department of Finance described a two-year balanced plan with about $253 billion in General Fund spending, roughly $5.5 billion in higher assumed revenues than the May Revision, and about $36.5 billion in combined reserves. They said the package preserves or expands funding for schools and community colleges, child care, IHSS, Medi-Cal-related county administration, housing and homelessness programs, public hospitals, courthouse construction, and some criminal justice and prison-closure savings, while delaying or modifying several prior health care reductions and some Medi-Cal changes. Much of the member discussion focused on Medi-Cal, H.R. 1, and the impact on low-income and immigrant Californians. Several Democrats argued the budget protects vulnerable residents by delaying some cuts, funding county eligibility work, indigent care, public hospitals, and food banks, and rejecting the Governor’s IHSS cuts and asset-limit proposal. Republicans criticized the budget for assuming future revenues, relying on new taxes, and not doing enough to address the structural deficit or improve accountability. Members also raised concerns and support around homelessness funding, Prop. 36, judgeships and courthouse funding, transit and GGRF allocations, local journalism, Caltrans fleet spending, and a proposed “fair share” revenue measure that was not yet before the committee. Public testimony was largely supportive of the budget’s health and human services provisions, especially the rejection of IHSS cuts and the asset-limit proposal, and the inclusion of funding for child care, sickle cell centers, domestic violence services, trauma recovery centers, distressed hospitals, county eligibility work, and transit programs. Some witnesses representing hospitals and health plans cautioned about the effects of moving certain Medi-Cal populations to fee-for-service and about proposed tax changes affecting health care providers. The chair said revenue trailer bills were still being finalized and would likely come back later in the week; the committee then moved to public comment, with the chair limiting speakers to about one minute each.

Transcript Highlights:

• We continued the Housing Stability Employment Services Program that began with ARPA funding, and it's
• This is a fairly new program for us that is funded with the Housing Trust Fund.
• Chair, Representative Duncan, the Family Stabilization Program is funded through the Public Education
• rate increases and fund expansion within the workforce technology program.
• But we take a share of all those other federal program funds to fund workforce technology instead of

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So first, we recommend aligning ELOP funding and funding for the After School Education and Safety Program
• So first we recommend aligning ELOP funding and funding for the after school education and safety program
• And so if upfront they say we're not going to operate a program, then we won't allocate their funds.
• Districts that had prior expanded learning funding from the state ramped up this program very quickly
• We had to start a lot of these programs with categorical funding and one-time funding because that's

Summary: The committee heard presentations on the Governor’s education budget proposals for the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), Learning Recovery Block Grant, and Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), followed by testimony from State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond. On LCFF, Finance outlined the proposed 2.43% COLA, repayment of prior deferrals, and a trailer bill penalty for LEAs that fail to adopt Local Control Accountability Plans on time. The LAO said its COLA estimate was slightly lower and raised concerns that the Governor’s proposed TK staffing ratio increase may be more costly than estimated. Members also discussed whether the current COLA formula should better reflect California-specific or district staffing costs, and whether TK should be more clearly separated from the K-3 grade span adjustment to avoid larger K-3 class sizes. The chair asked staff to work with the LAO on both the TK/K-3 issue and alternative COLA calculations. For the Learning Recovery Block Grant, Finance proposed restoring the first of three delayed payments, $378.6 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund, while the LAO recommended adopting the proposal but extending the expenditure deadline by at least a year. The LAO reported that districts had spent $1.6 billion of the $6.8 billion received through 2023-24 and said most districts were only now shifting from federal COVID relief to block grant spending. Members questioned whether the large state and federal investments were improving outcomes, citing declining reading and math trends, while Finance and the State Board president pointed to some signs of improvement, especially in math, attendance, and gains for some student groups. Darling-Hammond emphasized that student needs have grown, that recovery spending has gone to devices, ventilation, staffing, tutoring, summer school, and community schools, and that targeted interventions appear to be helping some districts recover faster than others. On ELOP, Finance proposed adding $435 million to expand universal access by lowering the Tier 1 threshold from 75% to 55% unduplicated pupils, bringing ongoing funding to $4.4 billion. The LAO said the estimate was reasonable but recommended delaying implementation for a year, aligning ELOP with ASES to reduce overlap, moving toward funding based on participation rather than enrollment, and considering a fixed Tier 2 rate. Members and witnesses discussed staffing challenges, the use of funds for students with disabilities, and uncertainty in Tier 2 funding caused by unspent dollars and opt-outs. Darling-Hammond supported ELOP as part of California’s broader after-school and summer learning strategy, said most districts are now offering full-day TK and expanded learning, and urged the state to reduce fragmentation across categorical programs and build more unified systems for funding, reporting, and support.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:08:10.160> funds a a set use that from this program funds a a set use that from this program
• If there are of this funding program.
• When you talk about the agency being able to fund those programs with the interest, is it the program
• The program is funded by general fund appropriations and then, as the spreadsheet shows, also by sales
• is funded by in 2024. us uh the program is funded by general<01:20:56.880> fund<01:20:57.120>

Bills: SF2434

Keywords: housing, development fund, affordable housing, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, expenditure provisions

Transcript Highlights:

• to these two restored for funding to these two programs. programs. programs.
• restored for funding to these programs. restored for funding to these programs.
• This restores line item funding to the rocket docket program.
• This identifies the state funding for the SEEK program.
• <00:56:15.960> funding Enforcement Foundation program funding Enforcement Foundation program

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Free Conference Committee on the 2026 General Assembly budget met to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of House Bill 500. Leaders opened by thanking the other chamber’s work, asking members to turn microphones on and off to avoid feedback, and stressing the need to clearly note decision points so both chambers record the same actions. Staff then walked through the bill page by page, explaining that the committee was comparing only House and Senate differences, not the governor’s proposed budget. The discussion covered a wide range of appropriations and language items, including next generation non-911 services, school safety reporting tools, restored funding for brain injury, epilepsy, veteran service, homeless veterans, and rocket docket programs, debt service changes, rural infrastructure, disaster aid caps, Attorney General and Medicaid fraud funding, agriculture and county fair grants, auditor and pension-related appropriations, school facilities and SEEK funding, and numerous education programs. Members also discussed charter-related funding such as Star Academy, Dolly Parton Imagination Library, school resource officers, school-based mental health providers, AP/IB exams, Governor’s Scholars and Entrepreneurs, and several pilot or initiative programs in economic development, energy, and labor. Several items were described as technical corrections or restorations of language and funding, while others reflected differences in amounts or how funds would be distributed. There were several questions and comments from members about wording such as “implement and carry out,” the absence of the governor’s budget from the comparison document, and whether SEEK funding should be tied to teacher raises. The chair and other members emphasized that the committee’s role was to reconcile the two chambers’ budgets, not to adopt the governor’s proposal. Members also raised concerns about opioid settlement funds and the Dolly Parton Imagination Library match rate, with one senator urging restoration of the House language. No final vote or formal action was taken in the portion provided; the meeting primarily consisted of explanation, questions, and discussion of proposed budget differences.

Transcript Highlights:

• drinking water program, that's federally funded, our water project fund, and our Colonia Infrastructure
• Um, annually funded programs.
• And the com the commercial development program funds just that.
• up a small loan pool in 2021, and then the SSBCI Capital Program, that is a federally funded program
• Um, so there's a lot of deeper funds for existing programs and a whole bunch of new funds, both in depth

Transcript Highlights:

• That program is self-funding. It doesn't use any general fund.
• Our budget target does not support funding this subsidy or the reinsurance program with general fund
• Our budget target does not support funding this subsidy or the reinsurance program with general fund
• Our budget target does not support funding this subsidy or the reinsurance program with general fund
• grant program, $2 million onetime<02:10:50.440> funding.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But it's also necessary because as we look at the general fund, these programs—the core safety net programs
• We want to thank you, the Legislature, for fully funding the Cal Food Program and for funding Universal
• On the EPIC extension as a rate-payer funded public purpose program, we believe EPIC and similar programs
• A cost-effective program that maximizes climate programs and uses your funds well.
• program and funding for our pre-apprenticeship program to train more firefighters.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• GGRF and which programs you want to continue funding with General Fund.
• This program is funded by the cap-and-trade program, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which has been
• We would say think about it alongside your general fund programs, weigh those programs that you are funding
• energy, and we fully support funding the program.
• energy, and we fully support funding the program.

Summary: The hearing opened with budget framing from the chair and the LAO, who said the May Revision addresses roughly a $14 billion budget problem and that the environment and transportation subcommittee’s proposals account for about $1.9 billion of the solution. The LAO urged members to focus on solutions that do not worsen out-year deficits, to preserve reserves, and to defer major policy changes that are not necessary to pass the budget, including the newly introduced water-related trailer bills. Members also raised concern about a late-dropped Olympic-related trailer bill, which the LAO likewise suggested should be deferred for fuller review. The first major item was the Delta Conveyance Project and related water quality control plan trailer bills. The administration argued the proposals would streamline permitting, water rights proceedings, judicial review, and land acquisition, and would clarify DWR’s bond authority for the project. DWR said the project is needed to protect water supply reliability against drought, earthquakes, sea level rise, and other climate-related disruptions, and that the tunnel would help move water when conditions are wet and safer for the environment. Committee members from both parties questioned the timing, the use of budget trailer bills for major policy changes, the scope of the CEQA and water-rights changes, the lack of a bond cap, cost growth, and eminent domain protections. The LAO recommended deferring both water trailer bills without prejudice. Public comment was sharply divided, with labor, water agencies, and some business groups supporting the project as climate adaptation and reliability infrastructure, while environmental, tribal, fishing, county, and community groups opposed it as an attempt to bypass public process and weaken protections. The committee then briefly heard the DMV’s Digital Experience Platform fee trailer bill, which would reinstate a $1 system improvement fee to help fund the vehicle-registration phase of the project. DMV said the fee would raise about $7 million annually and offset roughly $59 million to $60 million of project costs, while the LAO noted it would help but would not solve the Motor Vehicle Account’s broader structural gap. The hearing then moved to California High-Speed Rail, where the new CEO presented an updated plan and said the project remains a major climate and infrastructure investment. He reported a revised Merced-to-Bakersfield cost range of $34.9 billion to $38.5 billion, said the agency is trying to reduce risk through direct procurement of materials, and argued that stable annual funding is needed to avoid higher costs from delays.

Transcript Highlights:

• to the total CDSS program funding.
• It's just there are different base program funding levels across departments for different program types
• funding for those program types, and that's where we kind of landed with the way that the funding was
• We have staffing programs and different funding.
• They could use our funding for an attorney-of-the-day program.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a lengthy budget and policy discussion on child care, child welfare, and related early education issues, beginning with child care funding and slot utilization. Department of Social Services officials outlined the Governor’s proposed 2026-27 child care budget, including $6.8 billion for child care programs, an $11.5 million Prop. 64-funded disaster repair mini-grant program for licensed facilities affected by 2025 disasters, and projected reductions tied to federal CCDF formula changes and lower Prop. 64 revenues. DSS said the reductions could mean about 4,176 CCTR slots, but emphasized they were assessing how to absorb the cuts without disrupting children currently in care. The LAO supported aligning funding to lower revenues and asked for more detail on the disaster grant program. Senators pressed the department on why so many slots remain uncontracted or unfilled, why unspent funds revert to the General Fund, and whether more flexibility could move dollars from contracts to vouchers; DSS said delays are largely due to infrastructure, licensing, staffing, and enrollment ramp-up, and that it is working on readiness reviews, technical assistance, and possible reallocation of relinquished slots. The committee also discussed Emergency Child Care Bridge reallocations among counties and confirmed that no currently enrolled children would be disenrolled under the proposed slot reductions. A second panel focused on the state’s broader commitment to expand child care and reform reimbursement rates. DSS said California has nearly doubled child care funding in five years and increased monthly children served from about 294,100 in 2019-20 to more than 366,700 currently, while also advancing the single rate structure process through the alternative methodology and a joint labor-management committee report. Stanislaus County Office of Education described local shortages, especially for infant and toddler care, and argued that rate disparities between programs make it harder to sustain mixed delivery systems. Parent Voices California testified that the current system is confusing, unstable, and inequitable, with one speaker describing repeated paperwork burdens, waiting lists, and periods of homelessness while trying to maintain child care. The California Budget and Policy Center argued that only 16% of eligible children were enrolled in 2024, that Universal TK has drawn major resources into school-based care, and that providers remain paid far below the cost of care; it urged more revenue, faster rate reform, and expansion across the mixed delivery system. The LAO estimated that aligning CCTR adjustment factors for three-year-olds and children with disabilities with CSPP would cost $88 million to $131 million ongoing. Senators and staff also discussed the need for deadlines on automation and implementation of the single rate structure, with DSS and CDE noting that policy decisions, system changes, and collective bargaining issues are still being worked through. The committee then reviewed several child care trailer bill proposals. DSS proposed applying the 2026-27 COLA as an increase to cost-of-care-plus payments rather than as a traditional COLA, with $87.8 million General Fund initially proposed; DSS later acknowledged it had omitted CalWORKs Child Care and the Emergency Child Care Bridge from the calculation and said the amount would be revised upward. The LAO recommended making the COLA treatment uniform across child care and state preschool programs. DSS also proposed replacing the market rate survey with the federally approved alternative methodology survey on a triennial schedule, limiting temporary absences for licensed family child care homes to 20% of care hours in a month, defining excessive unexplained absences as more than 30 days in a 12-month period, and aligning family fee collection so contractors collect the fee without reducing the voucher value. The department said these changes are intended to bring state law into compliance with federal requirements and to better reflect current practice. Finally, the committee discussed the Early Childhood Policy Council, including a reappropriation of previously unused funds and a new reporting requirement under AB 563; members questioned staffing needs and whether existing contractor support could absorb the work, while DSS said the funds are used for stipends, facilitation, translation, and contract oversight and may still be needed as participation patterns change.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are two primary programs supported by this funding: number one, middle college and early college
• LEAs that are interested in using one-time funding to expand dual enrollment programs can use the one-time
• So I appreciate what all you're doing and allocating those funds for them. It's a great program.
• prep program, and that funding through GSTG would be available during the entirety of that program,
• funding for programs like the Golden State Teacher Program.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals across seven education-related items and received testimony from the Department of Finance, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Education, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, and the Office of Public School Construction. On dual enrollment, the administration proposed $100 million one-time Proposition 98 funding plus policy changes to expand access, including eligibility for regional occupational centers, added support for justice-involved youth, priority for higher-need LEAs, teacher professional development, and a reduction in required daily instructional minutes for some dual enrollment students. The LAO recommended rejecting the funding as not clearly tied to implementation barriers, while CDE supported the proposal but suggested reserving $10 million for technical assistance. Several public commenters and members supported the investment and urged inclusion of technical assistance and adult dual enrollment. For the reading difficulty screener proposal, the Governor proposed $40 million one-time funding and statutory changes requiring kindergarten screeners after 91 school days and grades 1-2 screeners after 46 school days, with the stated goal of reducing over-identification and allowing time for foundational instruction. The LAO recommended rejecting the funding, saying costs were likely overstated and that LEAs could use discretionary block grant funds instead. CDE supported the funding but the timing restrictions drew significant concern from the chair and public witnesses, who argued the deadlines were too prescriptive and could delay early intervention; advocates and literacy organizations urged preserving local flexibility and screening earlier. CDE and Finance defended the timing as based on data and consistent with other states, while also emphasizing that early instruction and support could still begin on day one. On special education, Finance described a proposal to increase the base rate to $99 per ADA through a $509 million ongoing Proposition 98 augmentation, along with COLA and enrollment adjustments. The LAO said the proposal should be adopted but estimated it could be achieved with less funding; CDE strongly supported the increase, citing rising enrollment, cost pressures, and inequities across SELPAs. Public testimony from districts and SELPAs echoed the need for more funding and asked for even higher per-ADA support. The committee also heard a school facilities update showing Proposition 2 bond balances and demand levels, with OPSC noting funds are being used for new construction, modernization, small district set-asides, lead remediation, and natural disaster assistance. For the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, members heard that the student teacher stipend program’s grants management system is complete and that the Commission is seeking to track participation and outcomes; the Governor also proposed additional state operations funding to address misconduct workload, implement SB 848-related data systems, and administer the stipend program. Finally, the Governor proposed $250 million one-time funding to continue teacher and school counselor residency grants through 2029-30, which the LAO said could help fill shortages but may be harder for rural LEAs; CTC supported the program and said regional technical assistance hubs are helping expand access. No formal votes were taken, and the hearing adjourned after public testimony.