Transcript Highlights:

• I have seven municipalities in my county, former county commissioner for eight years.
• of Alachua County.
• The Board of County Commissioners of a non-charter county may enact county ordinances not inconsistent
• to county.
• County as much.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee held its first meeting of the 2025 session and focused on an overview of county and municipal home rule powers and state preemption. After roll call and member introductions, Chair Alex Rizzo and Vice Chair Griff Griffiths explained the constitutional and statutory basis for local self-government, the distinction between charter and non-charter counties, and how express and implied preemption limit local authority. Griffiths emphasized that home rule gives local governments broad power to address community needs, but the Legislature can override that authority through clear preemption, with courts ultimately deciding disputes. Representatives Holcomb and LaMarca added that local issues should generally be addressed locally first, but statewide standards can be appropriate when uniformity is needed or local action is ineffective. The committee then heard from a panel representing counties, cities, business, and construction interests: Ginger Delegal of the Florida Association of Counties, Carolyn Johnson of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Rebecca O'Hara of the Florida League of Cities, and Carol Bowen of Associated Builders and Contractors of Florida. Delegal and O'Hara argued that home rule is rooted in local autonomy, policy experimentation, and accountability to voters, and warned against broad or “vacuum” preemptions that remove local authority without replacing it with state regulation. Johnson and Bowen supported preemption when local rules create a patchwork that hurts statewide competitiveness, raises costs, or complicates business operations, citing examples such as labor rules, heat safety, permitting, and procurement preferences. The panel also discussed the 2023 local ordinances law, which requires business impact estimates and provides attorney’s fees in certain challenges, as a mechanism to resolve disputes locally before resorting to preemption. Members questioned the panel about the 2024 heat-safety preemption and how to protect workers in the absence of local ordinances. Business representatives said existing OSHA duties and industry best practices already require employers to provide safe conditions, while local governments and the state should avoid inconsistent standards across jurisdictions. Another discussion centered on construction permitting, licensing, and local boards that may slow projects and increase costs; Bowen suggested eliminating redundant local fees and barriers while preserving statewide licensing and enforcement against bad actors. No votes were taken, and the meeting remained informational, with the chair inviting continued discussion on when preemption is appropriate versus when local governments should retain authority.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm happy to report Orange County has submitted a report, but why are I'm happy to report Orange County
• Sonoma County.
• Rick Valero, Tulare County, I oppose AB 928. Bill of Casares, Tulare County, I oppose AB 928.
• Stephen Wayne, Yuba County, I oppose AB 928. Emmanuel Salazar, Alameda County, and I oppose AB 928.
• I oppose San Chris County.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on April 30, 2025, for a regular order hearing on a large slate of bills. After opening remarks and quorum, the committee approved a consent calendar in two motions: one for bills eligible for the Assembly floor consent calendar and another for unanimous bills not eligible for floor consent. The committee also deemed the suspense calendar approved without further discussion. Several housing and shelter-related bills were presented. AB 1061 by Quirk-Silva would allow SB 9 duplex and lot-split provisions to apply in historic districts, with limits to protect individually listed historic sites and maintain street-facing appearances; California YIMBY supported the measure. AB 750 by Quirk-Silva would strengthen oversight of homeless shelters by requiring posted resident-rights information, standardized reporting, and penalties for noncompliance, including possible withholding of state funding. AB 712 by another member would increase penalties for public agencies that violate state housing law and bar indemnification demands against applicants when agencies break those laws; it was described as part of a fast-track housing package. The committee then took public comment, dominated by extensive opposition to AB 928. Dozens of individuals, many identifying with poultry, feed, gamefowl, agricultural, or related organizations, testified against the bill, saying it would harm their livelihoods, culture, religious practices, or constitutional rights and could kill birds. A few speakers also testified on other bills, including support for AB 1337 and AB 804 and opposition to AB 1337. After public comment concluded, the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• northeast along County Road 124 to the intersection of County Road 124 and County Road 413.
• of County Road 134 and Mississippi Highway 41 in Chasaw County.
• ,</c> County Road 124 in Chasaw County, County Road 124 in Chasaw County, traveling<00:03:56.560><c>
• </c> County Road 124 and County Road 413. County Road 124 and County Road 413.
• County. County.

Committee: Joint Highways and Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• the state coming in and buying county... the county computers.
• So we have a few counties left. We have Yavapai County, La Paz County, Gila County.
• Pima County is not included. Coconino County is not included. Mojave County...
• We have Mojave County. I forgot Mojave County, Pinal County, and Santa Cruz County, so next...
• Navajo County... Mr.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Audit Committee

Summary: The committee began with opening remarks about moving to a monthly, two-hour schedule for more timely and focused oversight of Auditor General findings. Members also recognized Melanie Chesney for 32 years of service to the Office of the Auditor General, with several speakers praising her work and her role in strengthening the relationship between the Auditor General’s office and J-LAC. The main agenda item was the Auditor General’s December 2025 special audit on the school safety interoperability fund and interoperable communication systems. Staff reported that about $26 million had been allocated to 14 law enforcement agencies for systems intended to improve real-time communication between schools and first responders. The audit found that all 14 agencies used the money for interoperable systems, but four agencies allowed private or tribal schools to participate contrary to statute, and several agencies failed to submit required annual expenditure reports. It also found that none of the three systems reviewed met every statutory requirement as written, in part because some requirements were vague or interpreted differently by vendors and agencies. The audit recommended that agencies recover and report any improper benefit to non-public schools, avoid using fund money for ongoing costs tied to non-public school participation, submit missing reports, and improve cost planning and contract monitoring; it also recommended that the legislature clarify eligibility for private and tribal schools and revisit unclear system requirements. The audit further found procurement and contracting problems at nine of 14 agencies, including weak or missing sole-source justifications, contracts that lacked accountability and termination provisions, and poor documentation of pricing and deliverables. Several agencies had not planned for ongoing annual costs, which the audit estimated could range from about $16,000 to $382,000 per rural county depending on the system. In the discussion, members expressed frustration with sole-source contracting and lack of documentation, and some said they would oppose future vendor bills without competitive bidding and stronger payment controls. The auditor also described mixed system performance: some agencies reported useful features such as panic alerts, camera access, and map sharing, but other systems were not fully functional or had never been implemented. The committee then heard from the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association, whose president said sheriffs support the goal of improving school safety, described county implementation challenges, and defended the use of local staff to manage the projects, while acknowledging that smaller counties face staffing and connectivity limits.

Transcript Highlights:

• . counties. counties.
• it's a closed county, an open county, a life safety county, or any other county.
• it's a closed county, an open county, a life safety county, or any other county.
• it's a closed county, an open county, a life safety county, or any other county.
• county, an open county, a life safety county, or any other county.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the August 26 minutes, and then took up a discussion of county jail funding. KACO representatives and county officials said jail operations are an ongoing strain for counties because they must pay for inmate care, facilities, and mandated standards, while many counties also rely on jail revenue to offset costs. They described Kentucky’s jail system, including 77 jails, 43 closed counties without jails, and the mix of county, state, federal, and controlled-intake inmates. KACO emphasized that counties remain financially responsible for inmates even when they must contract with other jails, often at costs above the state’s per diem rate, and said it is developing a broader proposal to present later. The testimony focused on rising expenses and shrinking revenue. KACO said counties spent about $374 million on jail operations in FY24, up 24% from FY19, and about $41 million on jail medical costs, up 40%. General fund support for jails was said to total $147 million in FY24, more than double pre-COVID levels. Speakers also noted that state inmate populations in county jails have fallen from about 11,500 in 2019 to 7,212 in 2025, while federal inmates have increased because they are more lucrative for counties. The state jail per diem of $35.34 was described as insufficient to cover actual costs, especially medical care. County judges from Webster, Knox, and Hardin counties gave examples of local budget pressure. Webster County said it now houses 114 state prisoners, 47 county prisoners, and 24 out-of-county prisoners, and that it transferred $512,000 from its general fund to the jail last year, about $77 per taxpayer. Knox County said its jail budget has grown from an initial $2.8 million projection to $5.7 million, with $3 million coming from occupational tax revenue. Hardin County said its jail has an approximate $11 million expense budget against $5 million in revenue, creating a $6 million deficit, driven by higher payroll, medical, and insurance costs and a 29% drop in state prisoner revenue. The judge said the county has responded with property tax increases and an expanded occupational tax district, but still uses reserves to cover other county services. A Grant County magistrate then began speaking from the perspective of magistrates and commissioners, describing her background working at a local jail before serving in county government. The discussion remained centered on the fiscal burden of jails and the need for counties and the legislature to work together on a long-term solution.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have partnerships with county behavioral health programs, private providers, and county sheriffs
• practices at county option.
• This would be at county option. The TBL also would enable us, This would be at county option.
• Decisions should counties decide not to cover this at county option.
• It is optional for counties.

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations from the Department of State Hospitals (DSH), the Commission for Behavioral Health, and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) on budget proposals and implementation updates. DSH outlined its proposed 2026-27 budget, including funding for patient operating expenses, IST solutions savings, conditional release program costs, LPS bed allocation changes, electrical infrastructure projects at Napa and Patton, SB 380 transitional housing feasibility work, and expanded dental services at Metropolitan and Patton. DSH also reported that it has met court-ordered IST treatment benchmarks in the Stiavedi v. Clinton case, with average time to initiate treatment down to about five days and pending placements reduced to roughly 250, while noting that Proposition 36 could increase referrals and SB 1323 may divert some individuals earlier into community-based treatment. Members asked about rising outside hospitalization costs, Medicare enrollment, the timing and structure of capital projects, and whether IST solution funds are being fully used; DSH said the savings reflect slower-than-expected ramp-up of community programs and that the Central California FACT replacement program is still on track for January 2027 activation. The Commission for Behavioral Health described its role under the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), including data, evaluation, grantmaking, technical assistance, and transparency work. It highlighted the new statewide Innovation Partnership Fund, a five-year, $20 million-per-year program with small and large grant categories; the first RFA drew strong interest, with more than 400 questions and over 1,000 bidders’ conference participants. The Commission also discussed a proposed extension to spend down about $4.1 million remaining for the Alcove Youth Drop-in Center grants so sites can finish implementation and Stanford can complete the final evaluation. Members asked about grant duration, whether projects can be renewed, what qualifies as innovation, and whether the fund could support service delivery rather than awareness campaigns or training; the Commission said awards are expected to be three-year contracts and that proposals must be new or meaningfully expanded approaches that support BHSA priority populations. DHCS reviewed major behavioral health changes under CalAIM and BH Connect, including peer support, mobile crisis, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, updated specialty mental health access criteria, and new substance use treatment standards based on ASAM’s fourth edition. DHCS reported strong contingency management results, with more than 13,000 members served and 95% testing negative for stimulant use during treatment, and said 21 Indian health care providers have been approved to offer traditional health care practices. It also described BH Connect initiatives such as the $1.9 billion access reform and outcomes incentive program, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation by four counties, and transitional rent services. On BHSA implementation, DHCS said it is not tracking individual county contract cuts but is monitoring county plans and statewide outcomes, while stakeholders raised concerns about local prevention and service gaps. DHCS also outlined its H.R. 1 implementation strategy, including outreach, streamlined renewals, exemptions for disabled, substance use, and medically frail individuals, and proposed clinic navigator and outreach funding; it said it has not yet produced a focused estimate of H.R. 1 impacts on behavioral health populations. The discussion ended with DHCS noting that B-CHIP bond funding has supported 437 infrastructure projects, creating 546 new or expanded facilities and more than 9,500 residential beds across the state.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have partnerships with county behavioral health programs, private providers, and county sheriffs
• Overall, we've received a lot of positive feedback from the counties transitioning to the county bed
• practices at county option.
• This would be at county option. The TBL also would enable us This would be at county option.
• It is optional for counties.

Transcript Highlights:

• County. County.
• Uh Nobles County County for assistance.
• </c><00:58:45.040><c> corre</c><00:58:45.839><c> county</c> regionalization or county corre county regionalization
• I represent the five counties of Cook, Lake County, St. Louis.
• County. You got Cooch and Carlton, but I County.

Bills: HF3700 , HF3982 , HF3927 , HF3933 , HF3949 , HF4238 , HF4275 , HF4476 , HF4504

Committee: House Capital Investment

Keywords: Duluth, Lake Superior Zoo, capital improvements, funding, bonds, appropriations, capital investment, port development, grant caps, state assistance, navigation facilities, Dakota County, state bonds, park improvements, infrastructure, transportation, safety, congestion, water infrastructure, bond issuance

Transcript Highlights:

• County.
• Those larger counties... ...Day County owns the airport.
• There's no law or standard, say, for county managers or county attorneys.
• And it may differ county by county.
• You know, Nassau County is doing a fantastic job. And the county.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes heard first from city representatives through the Florida League of Cities, who argued that property taxes are a stable local revenue source that funds core services such as police, fire, parks, public works, and stormwater work. Casey Cook emphasized that cities are optional governments with widely different tax bases and service levels, that exemptions shift the burden to fewer taxpayers, and that transparency already exists through TRIM notices, public budgets, and local hearings. Sarah Campbell of Fernandina Beach, T. Michael Stavris of Winter Haven, and Stephen O’Kee of Port St. Lucie described their budget processes, the share of general-fund revenue coming from property taxes, reserve policies, debt and capital planning, and the impact of inflation, minimum wage increases, and personnel costs. They all said local governments need predictable revenue and that any property tax changes would require careful consideration of replacement funding or service reductions. Members questioned the city panel about whether homebuyers are clearly informed about city versus county taxes and services, the role of HOAs, how many lobbyists cities employ, reserve levels, average salaries, and whether utility revenues are used only for utility purposes. The panel said TRIM notices, realtor listings, and city websites provide tax information; HOAs generally do not provide emergency services; lobbyists help local governments track Tallahassee legislation; reserves vary by city and fund; and utility revenues are generally restricted, though some cities use limited transfers. Members also asked about revenue replacement if ad valorem taxes were reduced or eliminated, and the panel said options would likely include user fees, service cuts, or other local revenue shifts. The chair also asked about public safety consolidation, and the response was that such decisions are local and may shift costs rather than create true savings. The committee then heard from county representatives after an overview by the Florida Association of Counties’ Davin Suggs, who framed counties as shared partners with the state and emphasized the gap between rising market values and the shrinking share of taxable value after exemptions and assessment limits. He said counties face a mismatch between revenue based on taxable value and expenses driven by real-world costs, and noted that most counties either held millage steady or lowered it without reaching rollback rates. He also highlighted that property taxes are only one part of county revenue, with charges for services and intergovernmental revenue often larger in some counties, and that public safety at the county level includes more than law enforcement, such as EMS, emergency management, inspections, and corrections. Deborah Manzo of Okeechobee County described a fiscally constrained rural county with limited staff, a county-supported airport, heavy reliance on property taxes for the general fund, and major cost pressures from inflation, insurance, retirement, and state and federal mandates. She said the county lowered millage slightly over recent years but still depends on multiple revenue sources and special assessments, and she flagged Medicaid, medical examiner costs, and possible firefighter workweek changes as significant concerns. Bay County Administrator Mark McQueen said his county’s budget is shaped by Hurricane Michael recovery, non-discretionary obligations, and rapid growth; he described ongoing FEMA reimbursement delays, substantial borrowing to cover disaster costs, and continuing interest expenses while the county waits for reimbursement. The county panel was still in progress when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Charles County.
• We also had to correct some things that said county or city within a county.
• County does.
• Louis County.
• We cover portions of Osage County, Maries County, and Gasconade County, but not the full counties of

Committee: House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Summary: The committee first met in executive session and unanimously voted Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 914 and House Committee Substitute for House Bill 3467 due pass. HB 3467 was amended before passage; the sponsor said the changes clarified that any tax authority would apply only if a tax change is actually approved, corrected county/city references, and fixed ballot-language issues involving sheltered workshops. Members generally praised the sponsor’s work, though one member noted concern about shifting more burden to sales taxes. The main public hearing was on H.J.R. 107, which would place before voters a constitutional question allowing Jackson County to consider separating Kansas City from the county or otherwise altering its charter government. Sponsor Rep. Steinmeyer argued the measure was about voter sovereignty and local control, citing prior Jackson County ballot measures and saying entrenched local power had blocked reform. Supporters echoed that Jackson County residents were frustrated with representation, taxes, and county governance. Opponents, including Kansas City and chamber representatives, argued the proposal was unnecessary, costly, procedurally unclear, and potentially destabilizing; several members also questioned the 10-year resubmission clause, the exclusion of local officials from the transition process, and the statewide fiscal impact. No action was taken on the resolution during the hearing. The committee then heard Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 975, dealing with ambulance district mergers and community paramedic/mobile integrated health services. Senator Black and supporters said the bill would help struggling rural ambulance districts merge without disrupting billing, contracts, or service, and would expand community paramedic care for low-acuity patients and hospital-at-home models. Several witnesses from ambulance and fire districts described successful programs and said the bill would improve patient care and help rural areas. Opponents, including ambulance and fire district representatives, supported the merger provisions but objected to Senate-added language they said would let districts provide community paramedic services across jurisdictional lines without memorandums of understanding, undermining local control and negotiating power. The hearing ended with testimony still ongoing after a recess for floor session; no vote on SB 975 was reported in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• In my county, St. Charles County, we are a growing county.
• That is Stone County and southern Christian County.
• That is Stone County and Southern Christian County.
• Stone County is a third-class county.
• the county clerk, as a county assessor.

Committee: House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Summary: The Local Government Committee first met in executive session and voted do pass on two House committee substitutes: House Bills 3283 and 3306 passed 11-1, and House Bills 1728, 2161, and 1830 passed 12-1. The committee then moved into public hearings. Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 914, dealing with septic system regulation, was presented as a measure to replace percolation testing with soil morphology testing as the baseline standard and to address a permit fee issue. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill would improve accuracy, consumer protection, and local public health administration; one witness noted the continuing-education language already exists in regulation and pointed out a minor wording change in the substitute. No opposition testified. House Bill 3467, sponsored by Representative Houseman, would allow county developmental disability boards to seek voter approval for a sales tax of up to one-half of 1% if property tax revenue is reduced or eliminated. The sponsor and multiple witnesses from county disability boards, sheltered workshops, and related associations said the bill was intended as a safeguard to preserve services, transportation, employment supports, and community-based care for people with developmental disabilities. Some members raised concerns about shifting from property tax to sales tax and the burden on low-income taxpayers, while others supported the measure as a revenue-diversification tool. No vote was taken. House Bill 312, relating to county treasurer duties and bank signature authority, drew testimony from the sponsor, county treasurers, auditors, and association representatives. Supporters said the bill clarifies that the county treasurer should have sole authority over county funds and reflects current practice, while also noting a forthcoming amendment to address what happens when a treasurer is absent. Some witnesses asked for stronger safeguards, including a bonded backup designee and clearer succession procedures, and one witness urged updating surety-bond requirements. The hearing closed with no opposition testimony and no committee action taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Charles County, we are a growing county.
• In my county, St. Charles County, we are a growing county.
• That is Stone County and Southern Christian County.
• That is Stone County and Southern Christian County.
• Stone County is a third-class county.

Committees: House Local Government , House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Transcript Highlights:

• Charles County and around Jefferson County.
• county plan that Jefferson County and the county commissioners in that area worked on.
• three counties.
• He said those counties are fourth-class counties that will be switched to third-class counties because
• Those counties are fourth-class counties that will be switched to third-class counties.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the county and district clerk from Sherman County.
• that county.
• county has four county commissioners' precincts.
• This is Hays County, Tarrant County, Harris County.
• I'm the County and District Clerk in Sherman County, and I'm here to testify on behalf of the County

Bills: HB569 , HB766 , HB1638 , HB2316 , HB2773 , HB2785 , HB3113 , HB3709 , HB3775 , HB4275

Committee: House Elections

Keywords: early voting, ballot correction, voting rights, election integrity, mail-in voting, voter notification, HB 766, precinct chair, precinct chair candidate, ballot application, Texas Election Code, Section 172.021, election administration, candidate filing, party precinct chair, county party, political party office, email address, telephone number, confidential candidate information

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 3709, which would change the partial manual audit process so early voting could be audited by voting location rather than by randomly selected precincts. The author and several supporters said the current precinct-based process is antiquated, labor-intensive, and especially difficult in countywide voting systems and large counties. Opponents and some neutral witnesses raised concerns about whether the change would still allow an apples-to-apples audit against official precinct results, whether random selection procedures should be more clearly defined, and how ballot secrecy and mail ballots would be handled. The Secretary of State’s office said counties already use random selection methods and that the bill would largely standardize early voting audits with election-day procedures, while also noting ballot privacy issues can arise in public records requests. After testimony, the bill was left pending. The committee then took up House Bill 766, as substituted, which would require precinct chair applicants to provide an email address, phone number, or both, while making that contact information confidential. Supporters said the change would help parties and local officials contact applicants more efficiently. Opponents argued it could expose personal contact information to public records requests and harassment, and some suggested the information should instead be handled through party rules. The bill was left pending after the committee substitute was withdrawn. House Bill 3775 followed and would set clearer timelines for when early voting ballot boards may begin opening carrier envelopes, with different start times based on county size. Supporters said the bill would address counties opening ballots too early and improve ballot security, while opponents warned it could delay defect notices and cure opportunities for mail voters and create problems in large counties that process high volumes of ballots. Testimony also focused on whether the bill referred to carrier envelopes or secrecy envelopes and on how counties like Harris County currently image and secure ballot materials. The bill was left pending. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 4275, which would require countywide polling systems to have polling places in each election precinct, intended to address uneven distribution of polling locations across county commissioner precincts. Supporters said the bill would make polling place distribution fairer and more consistent, especially in Harris County, while opponents said it would undermine countywide voting, increase costs, require more equipment and staff, and reduce local flexibility. Several witnesses also raised concerns about ballot secrecy and the practical burden on large and rural counties. The bill remained under discussion as testimony continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• Charles County.
• We also had to correct some things that said county or city within a county.
• County does.
• Lewis County.
• We cover portions of Osage County, Maries County, and Gasconade County, but not the full counties of

Committees: House Local Government , House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have partnerships with county behavioral health programs, private providers, and county sheriffs
• Overall, we've received a lot of positive feedback from the counties transitioning to the county bed
• practices at county option.
• This would be at county option. The TBL also would enable us, This would be at county option.
• County-funded program.

Summary: The subcommittee heard budget and policy updates from the Department of State Hospitals, the Commission for Behavioral Health, and the Department of Health Care Services. DSH described its proposed 2026-27 budget of $3.2 billion, including savings tied to IST solutions, higher patient-driven operating costs, and a small increase in caseload projections. Officials said the department has met court-ordered IST treatment benchmarks, with wait times reduced from a pandemic peak of 1,953 pending placements to about 250, and average treatment initiation now around five days. Members asked about the effects of Proposition 36 and SB 1323, rising outside hospitalization costs, Medicare enrollment, and whether IST solution funding was being overbudgeted; DSH said referrals are slightly down overall, aging and medically complex patients are driving outside care costs, and the IST solution savings reflect slower-than-expected program activation rather than a service gap. The department also outlined proposed funding for CONREP cost increases, a new county-by-county LPS bed allocation model, electrical infrastructure upgrades at Napa and Patton, SB 380 transitional housing feasibility work, and additional dental staffing and space at Metropolitan and Patton. The Commission for Behavioral Health reviewed its role in the Behavioral Health Services Act transition and its new Innovation Partnership Fund. Staff said the commission is shifting from county-level innovation oversight to a statewide grant strategy, with the first $20 million RFA drawing strong interest and awards expected in mid-June. Members asked how “innovation” would be defined, whether grants could be renewed after the initial three-year contracts, and how the state would ensure the money supports real service delivery rather than general outreach or training. The commission also sought a liquidation deadline extension for the Alcove youth drop-in center grants so remaining funds can be spent before they revert, allowing sites to finish implementation and support the final evaluation. DHCS provided an overview of CalAIM and BH Connect implementation, including updated specialty mental health access criteria, new ASAM-based substance use treatment standards, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation, and transitional rent services. The department also addressed BHSA implementation, saying it does not track specific local program cuts but will monitor county three-year plans, performance measures, and outcomes as counties shift to the new funding structure. On H.R. 1, DHCS said it is preparing outreach, eligibility simplification, and exemption strategies to reduce Medi-Cal coverage losses, including clinic navigators, a statewide outreach campaign, and possible employment supports through a future waiver. The department also reported that BH-CHIP bond funds have supported 437 infrastructure projects, creating 546 facilities and more than 9,500 residential beds, with additional outpatient capacity and tribal investments. Finally, DHCS outlined a proposed 988 trailer bill to create a statewide designation process for 988 centers and mobile crisis teams, with implementation no earlier than October 1, 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• result of county error.
• to county.
• So counties shifted to CIFCO.
• CDSS does not currently track county-by-county practices outside the statutory APS scope.
• costs to counties.

Transcript Highlights:

• , with their new county building.
• Idaho, and Adams County as well.
• within the county buildings.
• is completely different than Bonneville County or Canyon County.
• Different than Bonneville County or Canyon County. Courthouses don't look the same.

Committee: House State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• result of county error.
• to county.
• to county.
• CDSS does not currently track county-by-county practices outside the statutory APS scope.
• costs to counties.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the impact of H.R. 1 on older Californians and related county administration issues. Chair Jackson and Chair Addis opened by emphasizing California’s rapidly aging population and the need to protect seniors’ access to food, health care, housing, and in-home support services. Testimony from the Department of Social Services, Department of Health Care Services, and Department of Aging described how H.R. 1 would expand work and reporting requirements in CalFresh and Medi-Cal, increase redeterminations, and create new eligibility barriers. Witnesses and advocates warned that these changes could lead to large coverage losses, especially for adults ages 55 to 64, people experiencing homelessness, caregivers, and some immigrant groups, while also increasing administrative burden on counties. The LAO noted that many provisions do not directly apply to Californians 65 and older, but highlighted indirect effects and some direct impacts, including a new home equity limit for certain long-term care recipients and narrower immigration eligibility rules. Committee members pressed the administration and counties on how exemptions would be identified and implemented, whether data systems could automatically protect eligible people, and how outreach would reach older adults, women, LGBTQ seniors, and people with limited digital access. DHCS and CDSS said they are working to use existing data, cross-program information sharing, and human-centered communications to maximize exemptions and reduce churn, including text outreach, print and radio campaigns, and navigator support. Members also raised concerns about the need for legal aid and county eligibility workers to help people navigate complex rules, and requested updated analyses on the number of people likely to lose both Medi-Cal and CalFresh and the broader human and system impacts. No votes were taken. The second major topic was the administration’s proposal to shift some future IHSS costs to counties by establishing a statewide baseline for average authorized hours per case. CDSS said the proposal is intended to improve consistency in assessments and not reduce services, while counties and labor groups strongly opposed it, arguing that rising hours reflect real increases in need, an aging and higher-acuity caseload, and state-mandated assessment tools rather than county error. County representatives said the proposal would strain already limited local revenues, worsen the effects of H.R. 1, and could force cuts to other safety-net services. Committee members questioned the proposal’s timing and impact, but the hearing ended without action, with the chairs asking for continued updates, additional analysis, and more information before May Revision.

Transcript Highlights:

• Your first and second class counties are your large counties.
• Third-class counties are most of your smaller counties, and they have fourth-class counties.
• county.
• of Pettis County.
• county valuations.

Committees: House Local Government , House Local Government, Elections and Pensions