Transcript Highlights:

• You'll note in both about $1.6 billion.
• unspent at the end of the of fiscal unspent at the end of the of fiscal years<00:04:43.680> 24
• It's worth noting that we do not occur.
• keep Minnesota's fiscal house in order. keep Minnesota's fiscal house in order.
• These are programs and I have a track record of doing this as being very fiscally responsible and fiscally

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Today I'll share an update on the funds that Admin received in fiscal years 2024 and 2025.
• Today I'll share an update on the funds that Admin received in fiscal years 2024 and 2025.
• We are requesting $301,000 in fiscal year 2026 and $610,000 in fiscal year 2027 and ongoing. state's
• requesting $301,000 in fiscal year 2026 and $610,000 in fiscal year 2027, ongoing.
• many many years to come um we would note many many years to come um we would note anytime<00:35:

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to our council and our fiscal analysts. So welcome to both of you.
• We're going to our council and our fiscal analysts. So welcome to both of you.
• Senators, my name's Erica Byrd, and I'm a fiscal analyst.
• It should be noted that we also leverage AI in our detection and response systems.
• I'D ALSO ...like to note that we continue to provide ongoing updates to that guide.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's also really important to note that the PDG grant is a one-year grant.
• That is going to... ...come to an end at the end of June of this fiscal year.
• Just if they had noted funding, then that's what we counted. Okay. Yes, ma'am.
• If they had noted funding, then that's what we counted. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Thank you so much.
• And I just read my notes and realized I had forgotten this.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The committee met in a workshop-style discussion with Arkansas Department of Education early childhood officials to review the state’s early learning programs, especially ABC and SRA/CCDF, and to consider long-term sustainability, access, and quality. Officials said ABC funding was flat at $11 million from 2009-2010 until a $3 million increase in 2018, while CCDF/SRA funding is about $137 million. They reported ABC serves about 23,000 children, SRA about 14,871, and the SRA wait list has grown to 2,971 children, with breakdowns by age provided during the meeting. They also said the current ABC per-child cost is about $5,105, compared with roughly $8,000 in K-12, and that a new market-rate/cost-of-care study is due because the last one was about three years ago. Members raised concerns about rural and urban access, provider deserts, school-based versus community-based slots, and whether the state should expand or rebalance funding to better support infant-toddler care and mixed delivery. Officials said they are working on identifying gaps, moving slots where possible, and using local leads and quality measures such as CLASS observations to improve kindergarten readiness. They also discussed the transition of federal pre-K funding ending at the end of June, with children either moving into ABC or requalifying for SRA, but without grandfathering beyond bypassing the wait list if already enrolled. A major topic was the impact of new co-pays and funding reductions on families and providers. Officials said the state had to make changes to preserve the programs, and that paying based on enrollment rather than allocated slots saved about $576,000. They also said eight providers cited funding as the reason for closing, while 26 new providers were added under the new rates. Members questioned dual enrollment in home visiting/HIPPY and ABC, and officials said about 1,200 children are dually enrolled, with a possible savings of about $2.4 million if that practice were limited, though members cautioned about unintended consequences for children with developmental needs. The meeting ended with agreement to continue regular updates and further work on simplifying and stabilizing the early childhood system.

Transcript Highlights:

• Due to the size of the fiscal note in the bill, this committee substitute reduces the weight in the allotment
• We estimate that this weight will bring the fiscal note to about $250 million per biennium, which better
• We estimate that this weight will bring the fiscal note to about 250 million per biennium which better
• Got a fiscal note.
• Got a fiscal note.

Bills: SB530, SB757, SB769, SB1085, SB1241, SB1242, SB1409, SB1878, SB2138, SB2314, SB2231, SB2361, SB2431, SJR59

Keywords: accreditation, postsecondary education, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, baccalaureate degrees, junior colleges, program delivery, faculty recruitment, higher education, performance standards, student loan debt, degree programs, funding, students with disabilities, accessibility, enrollment, report, SB 1085, Sul Ross State University, Rio Grande College, Del Rio

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 met with a large agenda and repeatedly recessed for floor activity and other committee conflicts. The committee heard and left pending several higher education bills, including SB 2361 to transfer University of Houston-Victoria from the University of Houston System to the Texas A&M System and rename it Texas A&M University Victoria; testimony from university officials, local leaders, and industry representatives strongly supported the move as a way to better align degree programs with regional workforce needs in engineering, agriculture, and STEM. SB 530, which would align Texas accreditation statutes with federal rules allowing institutions to choose among nationally recognized accreditors, also received supportive testimony and was left pending. SB 1085, allowing Sul Ross satellite campuses to offer lower-division coursework toward bachelor’s degrees, was laid out and left pending as well. The committee also took up a series of education policy bills. SB 1241 would expand the standardized tests Texas public universities may accept for admission beyond the SAT and ACT, with supporters from the Classic Learning Test, homeschool advocates, and student-choice groups arguing it would increase access and competition; it was left pending. SB 769 would require a TEA/Higher Education Coordinating Board report on barriers faced by students with disabilities in higher education, and testimony from The Arc of Texas and others emphasized the need for better data and accessibility; the bill was left pending. SB 2231 would designate the second week of October as Free College Application Week, and SB 1878 would modernize terminology and support workforce-oriented programs at the Josie School; both were laid out and left pending. The committee reported several bills favorably after adopting committee substitutes. SB 605, concerning charter school expansion applications while under conservatorship or a management team, passed on a 9-0 vote. SB 1871, SB 1873, and SB 1874, all related to school discipline and teacher immunity/placement review provisions, were adopted and reported favorably, with members noting the need for further discussion on some language. SB 762, dealing with flag displays in public schools, passed on a 7-1 vote. SB 1962, relating to public school accountability and challenges to school system operations, passed 7-1 after a corrected vote. SB 1750, replacing a $60 million statewide charter facilities cap with an attendance-growth-based allotment, passed 7-1 with one member voting present not voting. SB 2252, supporting kindergarten readiness and early literacy/numeracy, SB 2253, concerning educator preparation and certification, SB 2365, on student use of wireless devices during instructional time, and SB 1924, restoring local peace officer citation authority for school offenses and adding reporting and parent-notification requirements, were also reported favorably. The committee additionally heard SB 37 on higher education governance and compliance oversight, which passed 7-1 after a substitute that refined curriculum review, governing board authority, faculty senate rules, and a new compliance office within the Higher Education Coordinating Board.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:32:54.799> public the fiscal note uh not requiring public the fiscal note uh not requiring
• <00:57:44.000> This The chair noted that, because of the fiscal note, they can't ask to put
• <00:59:43.920> note,<00:59:44.240> we >> So again, because of the fiscal note
• It would help if I had the text of that fiscal note.
• <04:17:29.680> note to go back and look at that fiscal note to go back and look at that fiscal

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will circle back to an update on that work group, but I just wanted to note that with the 2025 set
• , the data are still, And for fiscal year 2026, we're still—the data are still coming in, excuse me,
• for the calendar year and the fiscal year.
• You'll note that benefit amounts increased January 1 of this year.
• In fiscal year 2026, we regularly handled around 30,000 calls a month.

Summary: The Commission on Unemployment Compensation met, established a quorum, and elected Delegate Destiny LeVere Bolling as chair and Senator Mike Jones as vice chair. The commission also adopted its electronic meeting policy and heard introductions from new members, staff, and officials from the Secretary of Labor’s office and the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC). Secretary Jessica Lumen outlined the administration’s workforce and labor priorities, including supporting workers, employers, and program transparency, while members raised concerns about business climate, job losses, labor participation, and the implementation of paid family and medical leave. Staff provided legislative updates on recent unemployment-related bills. These included increases to the weekly unemployment benefit amount enacted in 2025 and 2026, a bill on labor dispute disqualification that changed how lockouts are treated for benefit eligibility, and a budget item providing $75,000 for actuarial support to the commission. The commission also discussed the 2025 work group on annual adjustments to weekly benefit amounts; staff reported that the work group did not complete its charge, and members agreed to revisit whether to reconstitute it at a future meeting. Delegate Martinez expressed support for continuing the work, and the chair said the issue would be taken up at the next meeting. Deputy Commissioner Joanna Darkus gave a detailed presentation on Virginia’s unemployment insurance system, including current claims data, eligibility rules, employer tax structure, benefit levels, trust fund solvency, fraud prevention, and customer service operations. She reported that Virginia’s unemployment rate remains low, weekly claims are modest, the current weekly benefit range is $160 to $478, and the trust fund balance factor is projected at 50.9 percent, near the threshold for additional employer charges. Members asked about the taxable wage base, trust fund solvency, the effect of benefit increases, fraud controls, and the planned paid family and medical leave program. VEC said it is implementing that program through regulations, staffing, IT procurement, public listening sessions, and consultation with other states. A public commenter from the Virginia Poverty Law Center urged the commission to strengthen state investment in unemployment insurance and warned that federal support is uncertain. The commission then adjourned without taking further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before we begin, I have some housekeeping notes to cover.
• As noted in the committee's announcement, Helping their patients get the health care they need.
• As noted in the committee's analysis, the bill's fiscal impact is mostly minor and absorbable, making
• These new policies would have a negligible fiscal impact.
• this fiscal logic.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 14, 2025, for a regular order hearing with a large consent calendar and many individual bill presentations. The committee first approved numerous bills on consent, then heard a series of measures spanning reproductive health, child care eligibility, transportation, mental health diversion, county recorder fees, groundwater management, election deadlines, parking enforcement, consumer protections, housing, immigrant and student protections, and utility/CPUC oversight. Several bills were taken up only for presentation because they were on suspense, including ACA 4 on long-term housing funding, and the committee later approved a very large suspense calendar as a whole. Among the bills discussed, AB 260 would protect medication abortion access and providers; AB 904 would clarify child care subsidy eligibility during family leave or job search; AB 1014 would give Caltrans more flexibility on speed limits in rural highway segments; AB 46 would clarify judicial discretion in mental health diversion; AB 1413 and AB 929 addressed groundwater adjudication and SGMA-related protections for small community water systems and wetlands; AB 930 would count vote-by-mail ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within seven days; AB 1022 would end towing solely for unpaid parking tickets; AB 290 and AB 302 dealt with automatic payments for the California Fair Plan and medical data protections; AB 1303 would remove the need for a Social Security number for California Lifeline eligibility; and several housing bills, including AB 920, AB 956, AB 1470, AB 893, and AB 1021, sought to streamline approvals or expand housing options. AB 1318 and AB 49 focused on immigrant-serving nonprofits and keeping immigration enforcement out of schools, while AB 1532 extended telecommunications and transportation access programs and added CPUC accountability measures. Testimony was generally supportive for the bills heard, with authors and sponsors emphasizing low or absorbable fiscal impacts, consumer protection, housing production, public safety, and protections for vulnerable communities. Opposition appeared on a few measures, including concerns about ADUs, towing authority, charter school-related issues, and the scale of proposed housing funding in ACA 4. Several members also commented in support of the housing and immigrant-protection measures, and some bills were voted out with recorded no votes or not-voting members noted. After the suspense calendar was deemed approved, the committee opened public comment on bills not presented that day, heard a long list of supporters and opponents on various measures, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, it's uh I have the actual numbers here somewhere on the fiscal note.
• <00:12:19.720> note.
• note, that don't looking at this fiscal note, that don't have<00:12:46.760> maybe<00:12:47.000
• Um, so I just wanted to point out the commissioner's notes here.
• She wrote a letter saying notes here.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I would note that that $10 million was allocated as part of the 2025 Budget Act back in June.
• I would just note that we rolled this proposal out as of January 10.
• So I just wanted to note that. With that, let us go to, I believe we have **Mr. Hart**, **Ms.
• We have to note that this is the law of the land today.
• It's important to invest in infrastructure this fiscal year.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so I just think that's really important to note.
• out. versus about, you know, 76,000 of this fiscal year data screening out.
• And so I just think that's really important to note.
• I think it's important to note that foster parents are not a party to the case.
• I just, again, want to note that there's a lot of information in here.

Summary: The Senate Human Services Committee held a work session on child welfare dependency, focusing on implementation of HB 1227 (Keeping Families Together) and SB 6109 (the fentanyl response bill), along with related data and system updates. DCYF first reviewed the dependency process, explaining intake, shelter care, fact-finding, disposition, and review hearings, and emphasized that removal standards are separate from service provision and that children may be in-home or out-of-home at different stages. DCYF said 1227 raised the removal threshold to imminent physical harm and strengthened kin placement, with nearly 60% of children now placed with relatives or suitable others. The department also said 6109 directs courts to give great weight to fentanyl’s lethality and added legal liaisons to support staff in court preparation. DCYF presented data showing that entries into out-of-home care declined after 1227 but rose again after 6109, returning close to pre-1227 levels. The agency also reported a sharp increase in reviewable critical incidents in 2022-2025, especially near-fatalities, which it linked to the opioid and fentanyl crisis, parental stress, and system complexity. DCYF said it has responded with statewide Safe Child Councils, staff consultations, hotspot monitoring, and additional training, and noted that some contracted services authorized under 6109 were not implemented because of fiscal constraints. Senators asked about where children are in the process, who participates in court, the timing of data releases, age breakdowns, and geographic hotspots. Advocates and lived-experience witnesses from LCYC and a family intervention clinic argued that 1227 has not prevented courts from removing children when necessary and said the law appropriately requires the state to show a causal link between home conditions and risk. They said 6109 appropriately highlights fentanyl’s danger, but stressed that the larger issue is lack of prevention and treatment resources, inconsistent county-by-county practice, and insufficient supports such as inpatient beds, family treatment, housing, transportation, and third-party safety plan participants. A parent ally described how early support, peer guidance, and kin placement helped her achieve recovery and stability after losing parental rights in an earlier case. The committee also heard an update on SB 6068 from the Administrative Office of the Courts and K Implementation and Evaluation. The report identified 15 dimensions of relational permanency and child well-being, found that some data already exist while other measures need development, and recommended a phased data collection plan, a restored data-sharing agreement between AOC and DCYF, and a standing cross-agency work group. AOC said its dependency data system lapsed when the prior agreement expired in June 2025 and needs to be rebuilt. The meeting also included a brief update on bridge housing for youth exiting inpatient treatment, with presenters saying two programs are now open, one in King County and one in Spokane, and a short introduction to juvenile rehabilitation capacity updates before the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• the office of budget and fiscal the office of budget and fiscal management.<00:06:58.319> I
• It it is also worth noting very quickly.
• I've taken a lot<00:48:22.079> of<00:48:22.160> notes.
• maintaining um a good fiscal maintaining um a good fiscal responsibility<01:21:16.880> to
• Please take note that in July the committee will not meet.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's important to note that not all cases and investigations result in findings of fraud.
• I think we've looked back at the 2018 local fiscal note that was done on a work requirements around the
• I don't think a fiscal note from 2018 is speculative; I think that that's the way we do our legislation
• It seems reasonable to me that in a fiscal note for requested additional resources, it ought to be possible
• as part of the fiscal note calculations to estimate both the additional costs and the additional recovered

Transcript Highlights:

• I saw the fiscal note and it was undetermined.
• I saw you taking notes, and I was taking notes too. I think you've got a great bill.
• The LBB providing us a fiscal note, in other words.
• You will get a lot more information than from a typical fiscal note, as it will look at the overall benefit
• note is.

Bills: HB35, HB138, HB754, HB1314, HB1612, HB2254, HB2510, HB2789, HB3560, HB3597, HB4224, HB4273, HB4643, HB4783, HB138

Keywords: peer support, first responders, mental health, confidentiality, emergency services, health impact analysis, cost analysis, coverage mandates, health insurance, legislative analysis, health care data, human trafficking, trafficking prevention, medical assistant training, health care facilities, hospital compliance, clinic compliance, anti-retaliation, whistleblower protection, employee reporting

Transcript Highlights:

• The fiscal note did come out today, and so my intention is to have that exact number be put into the
• The fiscal note did come out today, and so my intention is to have that exact number be put into the
• The fiscal note did come out today, and so my intention is to have that exact number be put into the
• The fiscal note did come out today, and so my intention is to have that exact number be put into the
• note, it talks you look in the fiscal note, it talks about<00:25:50.640> the<00:25:50.880>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And I have fiscal staff here to address the fiscal note and other concerns.
• And I have fiscal staff here to address the fiscal note and other concerns.
• Again, thinking outside the box, but also bringing something forward that has a fiscal note of $150,000
• <00:53:19.440> note<00:53:19.680> of forward that has a fiscal note of forward that
• has a fiscal note of $150,000<00:53:21.280> I $150,000 I $150,000 I mean<00:53:23.000> props

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm not going to go over those main points again except to note how they may apply.
• So the specific BCP in front of you is for $38.6 million for just the next fiscal year.
• And with that, I'm going to end on a more optimistic note.
• So that funding source is scheduled to go away after that fiscal year.
• So that funding source is scheduled to go away after that fiscal year.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on water and coastal resilience heard an overview of the governor’s Proposition 4 spending plan, with presentations from the Department of Finance, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and later coastal agencies. Members discussed the water chapter’s major allocations for drinking water and wastewater, recycled water, tribal water infrastructure, groundwater recharge and SGMA implementation, dam safety, flood protection, integrated regional water management, Salton Sea projects, and water data/stream gauges. The LAO noted that many programs are established and have clear funding processes, but some newer or less-defined programs may warrant more detailed future budget requests and reporting. No votes were taken on the agenda items. Members raised concerns about groundwater subsidence, water deliveries from the Delta, the pace of water storage investments, instream flows, and whether bond dollars were being used to backfill General Fund reductions. Administration witnesses said groundwater recharge spending is being paced because prior years already funded substantial SGMA work, that Delta operations are governed by water quality, salinity, and species requirements, and that Proposition 1 storage projects have moved slowly because they are locally led and require permitting and financing. The Water Board and DWR said they use public needs assessments, annual plans, and existing grant processes to prioritize projects, and Finance said some General Fund programs were shifted to Proposition 4 to help balance the budget. Members also asked for clearer public tracking of bond spending and more concise future reporting. In the coastal resilience portion, the Ocean Protection Council and Coastal Conservancy described Proposition 4 funding for sea level rise adaptation, coastal flood management, habitat restoration, public access, and San Francisco Bay projects, with a multi-year rollout based on project readiness and recent large state investments. The Conservancy said it would use its existing rolling grant process, while OPC said its sea level rise grants would build on existing programs and new technical assistance. The Department of Fish and Wildlife explained its proposed use of bond funds for climate-ready fisheries, hatchery modernization, salmon monitoring, whale- and turtle-safe fishing gear, and a specific hatchery operations request tied to the Friant settlement. The LAO said the coastal chapter’s proposed first-year spending is relatively modest but generally reasonable given staffing and project readiness, while members emphasized oversight, transparency, and coordination across agencies and jurisdictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• And actually before I do, I want to introduce our staff director sour note a list and I will have her
• So again, we fiscal year. 23 24 took in about 2.9 billion dollars revenue.
• You can see that 58% in fiscal year 2024. Up from 52%.
• And 23 46% in fiscal year 2022. campaign awareness significantly boost travel interest.
• This is a list of are approved initiatives for this fiscal year.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Abeler, is there a fiscal note for this bill?
• Madam Chair, I did request a fiscal note on the underlying bill, although not on the A1 amendment.
• <00:30:19.360> note um Senator abler is there a fiscal note um Senator abler is there a fiscal
• <00:30:28.279> note Madam chair I did request a fiscal note Madam chair I did request a fiscal
• So there's not a fiscal note. Madam Chair, and I imagine we're laying this over, is that right?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I would note that... That $10 million was allocated as part of the 2025 Budget Act back in June.
• But we'll note that we'll be back in January.
• I would just note that we rolled this proposal out as of Jan. 10.
• It's really important to invest in infrastructure this fiscal year.
• Just want to make a quick note as well about 105.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the September budget package, which included SB 105 and a series of trailer bills covering health, human services, education, resources, child care, transportation, labor, public safety, housing, revenue, background checks, collective bargaining, and a special election. The Department of Finance described the package as largely technical and clarifying, but also responsive to state and federal changes, especially H.R. 1. Key items included roughly $3.3 billion in Proposition 4 climate and environmental spending, $540 million in discretionary greenhouse gas reduction funds, and major responses to H.R. 1 such as CalFresh error-rate mitigation, food bank support, and Medicaid-related changes. Other notable provisions included vaccine policy flexibility, an Abortion Access Fund, a gender-affirming care program, community college basic-needs and aid changes, CEQA and coastal permit exemptions tied to the 2028 Olympics, invasive mussel prevention funding, a civic media program, labor and pension-related provisions, and special election administration changes. Members raised questions and concerns about several parts of the package. There was support for climate, water, transit, offshore wind, food security, and health investments, but also significant criticism of the lack of cleanup language for SB 131 and its advanced manufacturing exemptions, with multiple members saying promised fixes had not materialized and expressing concerns about tribal consultation, labor standards, and environmental protections. Members also questioned the scale and timing of some Proposition 4 allocations, including fairground upgrades, regional conveyance, and a UC Davis alternative protein research center. The Department of Finance said some programs would roll out over time and that certain funding levels reflected current implementation capacity. The hearing also featured discussion of Bay Area transit financing, with Finance saying SB 105 directs the department and CalSTA to examine loan or other financing options rather than immediately providing loans. Members and public commenters also discussed the state’s response to H.R. 1, with advocates supporting food bank, health care, and immunization provisions while warning of ongoing harm to immigrants, foster youth, and other vulnerable groups. Public testimony broadly supported the health, food, water, offshore wind, and golden mussel provisions, while many speakers echoed legislative concerns about SB 131 and urged cleanup action in the next session. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only, though the chair noted votes on the bills were expected later that night or the next morning.