Transcript Highlights:

• Counties and CMSP funding programs have funded indigent care through 1991 realignment.
• So if the funding increases, we can increase the slot number and continue to fund the infrastructure
• The challenge becomes, with the funding now going forward, how much of that can we continue, because
• Funding. We need it. Thank you.
• , of course, getting funding, emergency funding for those that have had to close and make sure we can

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee held an informational hearing on the impact of federal H.R. 1 and related state budget actions on California’s health care system. Opening remarks framed the federal changes as a major threat to Medi-Cal, Covered California, hospitals, clinics, and the broader safety net, with warnings that millions could lose coverage and that costs would shift to providers, counties, and consumers. Testimony from the California Health Care Foundation and the Legislative Analyst’s Office focused on implementation challenges, the administrative burden of work requirements and more frequent renewals, the loss of federal funding, and the need for California to consider long-term structural changes to Medi-Cal, county safety-net programs, and cost containment. A Covered California enrollee, Chas Franklin, described sharply rising premiums for his family after losing subsidies, illustrating the personal impact of federal policy changes. Committee members raised concerns about whether premium increases were driven by H.R. 1 or insurer pricing, the cost of rebuilding county-based indigent care systems, and the need to account for the cost of inaction. Dr. Hernandez pointed to pre-ACA models such as Healthy San Francisco as examples of coordinated local safety-net care, while also emphasizing the importance of primary care, data interoperability, and the Office of Health Care Affordability in reducing waste and improving access. Department of Health Care Services officials then outlined the state’s implementation plan for H.R. 1, including work requirements, six-month redeterminations, reduced retroactive coverage, cost-sharing, and immigration-related eligibility changes. They said the department would try to automate eligibility checks, expand outreach, and train counties and partners, but estimated up to 2 million Californians could lose coverage over time. Covered California reported that the expiration of enhanced federal premium tax credits and new federal marketplace rules are already raising costs and reducing enrollment, with an estimated 400,000 enrollees at risk of dropping coverage. County, hospital, and safety-net representatives warned that coverage losses will increase uncompensated care and strain local systems, while one coalition proposed a temporary state-funded coverage option as a bridge if full-scope Medi-Cal cannot be maintained. The hearing concluded with a policy analyst urging stakeholder engagement, immigrant protections, and new state revenue options to preserve coverage and offset federal cuts.

Transcript Highlights:

• It was a $600 million initiative to fund planning grants and economic Resilience Fund, SURF.
• one-time funding that helped neighborhood industries to be able to scale and to grow, federal funding
• one-time funding that helped neighborhood industries to be able to scale and to grow, federal funding
• So it's challenging, right?
• So it is a challenge, right?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• spending in Medi-Cal, which would require more funding from the General Fund.
• spending in Medi-Cal, which would require more funding from the General Fund.
• The funding would be through the PACE Oversight Fund.
• The funding would be through the PACE Oversight Fund.
• the fund can be deposited in or transferred to the General Fund.

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• from proposals funded with the general fund.
• by the general fund, loaning to the general fund.
• , and then, further in descending order, federal funds, reimbursements, and bond funds.
• Those funds have depleted, as many funds across the state have depleted.
• , which was funded by a Prop. 1 grant from them, or other federal funding opportunities.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is where we encounter the dual challenge: the dual challenge of reducing carbon intensity of our
• Some challenges remain in obtaining primacy.
• all of those funds have been released.
• But to rise to this challenge, we need clear permitting regimes, funding, and public-private partnerships
• The third piece is also challenging.

Committee: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• All the organizations that are funded by the Equal Access Fund also receive IOLTA funding. Okay.
• There's litigation challenging many funding cuts, but we anticipate that, or we estimate that it's somewhere
• Because the General Fund, one of the challenges we have, which is for another day, is that what the..
• know we need to fund.
• We still need that funding, but we understand the state's challenging financial times.

Summary: The committee heard budget and workload presentations from the Office of the State Public Defender, legal aid organizations, and the Judicial Branch. OSPD requested permanent funding for positions that had been temporarily funded to implement the Racial Justice Act, explaining that the work has become ongoing and now includes additional Supreme Court briefing, habeas proceedings, investigations, expert analysis, and data requests. The State Public Defender also presented the AB 625 public defense workload report, which found statewide staffing shortages, caseloads above recommended standards, and major gaps in investigators and support staff. Senators asked about racial bias claims, the volume of data requests, and the impact of Prop. 36, and OSPD said it would provide additional written information. The legal aid panel asked for a $50 million increase to the Equal Access Fund, $20 million to restart homelessness prevention services, and $10 million for health care access work, while also supporting Access to Justice Commission requests for loan repayment assistance, immigrant family preparedness services, and innovation grants. Witnesses described legal aid as homelessness prevention and cited examples involving eviction defense, domestic violence survivors, and immigration detention cases. Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Sergio Tapia discussed eviction data, low tenant representation, and court pilots in Compton and at Stanley Mosk that combine mediation, rental assistance, and legal help. Senators asked for service maps, outreach materials, and more detail on funding needs and federal funding losses. For the Judicial Branch overview, the Judicial Council and trial court representatives supported the Governor’s proposed budget, including $70 million for trial court operations, $21.7 million for employee health and retirement costs, and funding for appellate counsel, case processing, and courthouse construction. They said rising costs, staffing retention, and interpreter shortages continue to strain the courts, and described efforts to reallocate interpreter funds and recruit hard-to-find languages such as Mixteco. Senators pressed the branch and the Department of Finance on courthouse facilities, noting that the long-term need is far larger than the current budget proposal; Finance said the branch’s facility needs were estimated at about $22.5 billion over 10 years to start 68 projects and $29.4 billion to complete the remaining projects. The committee requested follow-up information on facilities, judgeships, and interpreter needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• With the federal funding uncertainty, With the federal funding uncertainty that's looming, I also just
• amount of expansion funds.
• So that's funded through House 1.
• I think the biggest challenge facing our agency is actually not about our federal funding.
• , that funds CHIA.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard budget testimony from Department of Mental Health Commissioner Brooke Doyle, who said DMH serves about 29,000 people and is facing rising demand, higher operating costs, and uncertainty about federal funding. She explained that the FY26 budget prioritizes fully funding the state-operated inpatient system, which is at 100% occupancy and often serves people transferred from Bridgewater State Hospital, while making reductions in other areas to balance the budget. Those reductions include a 50% cut to case managers, a pause on closing the Pocasset unit pending a working group on Cape access, and changes to youth and contracted services such as right-sizing IRTP and CIRT, reducing Youth PACT from seven teams to three, scaling back flex and jail diversion grants as ARPA funds wind down, and preserving the behavioral health helpline and community-based crisis services. Members from Western Massachusetts and the Cape raised concerns about access, staffing, and the impact of cuts, and Doyle said the department would continue operating IRTP services, improve the referral process, and work with stakeholders on the Pocasset review and other access issues. The committee also discussed school-based mental health, 988, loan forgiveness for workforce recruitment, and the role of co-response programs for law enforcement. Secretary Robin Lipson then testified for the Executive Office of Aging and Independence, describing a proposed FY26 budget increase of about 21% to support councils on aging, home care, elder abuse investigations, caregiver support, care transitions, and nutrition programs. She said the agency is managing rising demand, especially from the growing 80-plus population, and noted uncertainty around federal Older Americans Act funding after the federal disbursement agency was disbanded. To control costs, the office will manage intake and caseload growth in a fully state-funded home care program, but current clients will not lose services. Lipson also highlighted a new $1 million line item for local mini-grants to support age-friendly initiatives. In questions, members focused on elder scams, and Lipson said scams are increasing and the agency is working with banks, district attorneys, and public awareness campaigns. The Health Policy Commission’s Executive Director David Seltz presented the agency’s FY26 request and said the biggest challenge is health care affordability, with family premiums near $29,000 annually and many residents delaying care because of cost. He emphasized that recent legislation significantly expands HPC’s role through a new Office of Pharmaceutical Policy and Analysis, which will examine the drug supply chain and pricing, and a new Office of Health Resource Planning, which will support statewide planning around closures and access gaps. The new law also creates task forces on maternal health access and primary care, and adds transparency and oversight for private equity in health care. Members asked about pharmaceutical costs, GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, 340B, and maternal health closures; Seltz said the data show rapid growth in GLP-1 spending and that the new offices will help the state better understand cost drivers and access problems. The Center for Health Information and Analysis then began its testimony, describing its role as the state’s data hub for health care spending, utilization, quality, and affordability analysis.

Transcript Highlights:

• for the commissioner to, based on the funds available in that trust fund, be able to hire the FTEs necessary
• general fund. ...it's special funds, but yet it's going to be a reduction to the general fund, and I
• Was there another fund that was helping?
• So typically we don't bill general fund agencies, and we do bill special fund agencies.
• of that, and that fund goes away.

Committee: Senate Industry and Business

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Industry and Business reconvened to work on House Bill 1584, which would create a new pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) regulatory structure within the Insurance Department. Insurance Commissioner John Godfrey and Deputy Commissioner John Arnold explained a revised set of amendments negotiated with Representative Casper and the North Dakota Pharmacists Association. They said the bill largely kept the House policy intact but added technical corrections, narrowed some references in Chapter 19-02, created a separate PBM licensing class, set a delayed effective date for licensing, and established emergency authority so the department could begin building the new division. They also described the proposal to fund the program through existing trust fund resources, PBM license fees, and a transfer of about $1.6 million from the prescription drug transparency program fund, while allowing the department flexibility to hire needed attorneys, pharmacists, and examiners. A major point of discussion was Section 10, which would have required the Attorney General to represent and bear costs for lawsuits related to the bill. Chief Deputy Attorney General Claire Ness said the language was too broad and would go beyond normal constitutional defense work, potentially obligating her office to cover all lawsuits against the commissioner or state under the section. Representative Casper said the intent was only to avoid the Insurance Department having to seek emergency funding for litigation, and both he and department officials said they were open to removing the section or narrowing it. After further discussion, the committee agreed to remove Section 10 from the amendments. The committee then voted 4-0 to adopt the amended amendment package, and then voted 4-0 to give House Bill 1584 a do pass recommendation as amended and refer it to Appropriations. Members noted the bill was still a work in progress, but said the revised version was intended to move the PBM regulation issue forward while continuing discussion in the appropriations process.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is very challenging.
• But yeah, it's a challenge in terms of government services are funded by fees.
• to fund their rebuild.
• That's a messaging challenge. It's a financial challenge.
• I know funding is a challenge, and everybody here that we've heard from needs funding, so I'm not even

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, local funding requirements continue to be a challenge.
• Federal transit funding program Finally, local funding requirements continue to be a challenge.
• So did you get the full funding for 2025 then, or partial funding for the year?
• So did you get the full funding for 2025 then, or partial funding for the year?
• It's a challenge.

Summary: The committee met as a study subcommittee on fixed-route public transportation and first approved the December 11 minutes. It then heard detailed presentations from transit leaders in Grand Forks, Bismarck/Mandan, and Fargo about their systems, including route structures, paratransit service, ridership trends, fare changes, funding sources, fleet replacement needs, and operational challenges. Grand Forks described Cities Area Transit’s 17 routes, university shuttle service, expanded paratransit coverage, a 2025 fare increase, and rising costs for labor, fuel, parts, and new buses. Bismarck/Mandan’s Bisman Transit outlined its fixed-route and paratransit operations, recent service expansions approved for April 1, fare structure, ridership recovery since COVID, and major funding streams including mill levies, federal grants, and new local sales tax revenue. Fargo’s MATBUS representative emphasized the importance of continued state support for urban fixed-route transit. Members asked extensive questions about cost per ride, fare increases, school transportation, veteran service partnerships, app-based ticketing, local funding formulas, and whether ride-share or microtransit could replace fixed routes. Transit officials said fixed-route service remains essential because it provides reliable capacity, supports jobs and access to services, and preserves federal funding tied to public transit operations. They also said paratransit is costly but necessary for riders with disabilities, and that vehicle and maintenance costs have risen sharply. Minot’s transit superintendent added context on the state’s existing transit aid formula, explaining that it is weighted more toward rural and paratransit providers and that urban fixed-route systems are seeking a separate, dedicated funding source rather than changes to the current formula. The committee also heard public testimony from North Dakota Protection & Advocacy supporting both fixed-route and paratransit service for disabled riders, and from Minot staff on refurbished buses, CDL driver recruitment, and why the agency is not pursuing full electric buses. Near the end, members discussed whether to recommend additional state funding for the four urban fixed-route systems. A motion passed to have Legislative Council prepare a summary of the subcommittee’s activities for inclusion in the Government Finance Committee’s report to Legislative Management. Members then continued discussing possible recommendations, including a separate funding source for urban fixed-route transit and whether the four urban systems should meet to develop a proposed amount.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now moving on to H.R. 1's significant restrictions on state funding tools and vital funding mechanisms
• of a $50 billion fund for rural health care providers.
• going to be submitting an application for those funds.
• , it is not a replacement of ongoing funding.
• Children First includes funding for counties to address unique local needs and unforeseen challenges,

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the impacts of H.R. 1 on California’s Medi-Cal program and on community health effects from recent immigration enforcement actions. Committee leaders said H.R. 1 would sharply reduce federal funding, increase administrative burdens, and worsen access to care, especially for Medi-Cal enrollees, immigrant families, rural communities, and reproductive health patients. The second half of the hearing examined how ICE raids and related federal actions are creating fear, reducing clinic and emergency department use, and disrupting children’s access to schools and early childhood education. Department of Health Care Services Director Michelle Bass outlined the main H.R. 1 provisions affecting Medi-Cal: work requirements, semiannual eligibility redeterminations, shorter retroactive coverage, new cost-sharing, limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments, reduced federal support for emergency and lawful immigrant coverage, and a one-year ban on Medicaid funding for prohibited abortion providers. She estimated millions could lose coverage, with tens of billions of dollars in federal funding at risk. Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California warned the defunding provision could force clinic closures, service reductions, and loss of access to family planning, STI testing, and cancer screenings. The California Hospital Association said the financing changes could cut hospital revenue by tens of billions over 10 years and threaten access, especially for rural and safety-net hospitals. The Western Center on Law and Poverty argued the law would increase churn, paperwork, and uninsured rates, disproportionately harming working adults and people experiencing homelessness. Committee members asked about implementation timelines, notification systems, administrative costs, the effect on immigrant eligibility, and whether California could delay or mitigate some provisions. Bass said the state was still assessing federal guidance, planning county and provider outreach, and exploring a possible delay for work requirements and a transition period for provider-tax changes. Members also discussed how state budget actions may need to be revisited in light of H.R. 1, and how California might preserve access through state-only funding or other policy changes. In the second panel, CHIRLA, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, and the Children’s Partnership described the health consequences of immigration enforcement. Speakers said raids and data-sharing fears are causing anxiety, trauma, and avoidance of care, with Los Angeles County reporting declines in emergency, urgent care, and clinic visits after enforcement actions. The Children’s Partnership said school and early childhood absences are rising in some communities and that enforcement is undermining children’s emotional well-being and access to education. Members asked for more data and discussed possible state protections, telehealth, mobile care, and legal and policy responses to reduce fear and preserve access to health and education services.

Transcript Highlights:

• and the insurance challenges.
• and the insurance challenges. and want to think about on the financial challenges and the insurance
• Including California, utilize to draw a pool of funds that then draws down greater federal funds.
• I am not here to simply ask for more funding.
• One, when it comes... ...the challenges.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Senate and Assembly Health Committees focused on the “cost of uncertainty” in health coverage, access, and affordability amid federal policy changes. Opening remarks from committee leaders and members emphasized that California’s gains under the Affordable Care Act and Health for All policies—high coverage rates, consumer protections, and lower uninsured rates—are now threatened by federal rollbacks, including the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits and H.R. 1. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the risk of coverage losses, especially for low-income Californians, workers, seniors, and immigrant communities. The first panel featured federal policy and state implementation experts, including Don Joyce, Jessica Altman of Covered California, and Elizabeth Lansberg of HCAI’s Office of Health Care Affordability. Testimony described the ACA’s coverage expansions and the current federal threats: shorter open enrollment, more verification requirements, loss of enhanced subsidies, and changes affecting immigrants and preventive coverage. Covered California reported that average monthly premiums could nearly double without the subsidies, new enrollment is down sharply, and more consumers are shifting into bronze plans with higher deductibles. HCAI explained its affordability strategy through spending targets, consolidation review, and primary care investment, while members asked about the impact of federal cuts on provider taxes, uncompensated care, and whether California can sustain coverage without new revenue. The second panel, with UC Berkeley Labor Center’s Miranda Dietz and California Health Care Foundation’s Christoph Stremikis, broadened the discussion to statewide cost drivers and consumer impacts. They highlighted that more than half of Californians under 65 rely on job-based coverage, yet premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs have risen faster than wages. They also pointed to medical debt, administrative waste, market consolidation, and underinvestment in primary care as major drivers of unaffordability. Members asked about the 25% of health spending that does not improve patient care, the role of fraud versus administrative friction, the effect of cost growth targets on workers, and the need for preventive care and possible revenue solutions. The hearing then moved to a third panel on human impacts, beginning with testimony from a Central Valley promotora describing how families are choosing lower-tier coverage, struggling with diabetes care, and facing higher premiums after subsidy losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's why the Legislature provided funding last biennium, so thank you for that funding, for us
• But it's facing challenges.
• So that's really indicative of some challenges.
• So that's really indicative of some challenges.
• Funding for hunger relief organizations.

Committee: Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I usually like to kind of set the scene in terms of Oregon's structural funding challenges when giving
• And then generally, we do not have any general fund or other non-user fee funds.
• challenges.
• challenges.
• ODOT's budget gap and structural funding challenges.

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee first took up three highway naming resolutions on its consent calendar: ACR 109, SCR 78, and SCR 90. The committee approved the consent calendar with 11 aye votes and no no votes, then adjourned the bill-hearing portion. Members also recognized committee science fellow AJ Mendeola for his service, noting his contributions to bill analysis and staff support. The committee then held an informational hearing on alternatives to the gas tax, focused on the projected decline in fuel-tax revenue and the need for a more sustainable transportation funding model. The chair and invited experts described how inflation, improved fuel efficiency, and growth in electric and other alternative-fuel vehicles are eroding gas-tax revenues. Presenters from the National Conference of State Legislatures and the University of California discussed state options such as higher or indexed gas taxes, EV registration fees, road usage charges, delivery fees, public EV charging fees, transportation network company fees, and managed lanes, emphasizing tradeoffs among revenue adequacy, fairness, administrative cost, and public acceptance. Committee members raised concerns that mileage-based fees or EV fees could function as new taxes on commuters and lower-income drivers, especially if the gas tax is not repealed. Presenters responded that road usage charges are generally intended as replacements for the gas tax, not additions, and argued that mileage-based systems better preserve the user-pays principle while being less tied to vehicle fuel efficiency. They also noted that flat EV registration fees are easy to administer but can be less equitable because they are not linked to actual road use. Officials from Hawaii, Utah, and Oregon described their state programs and policy choices. Hawaii said its new road usage charge began July 1, 2025, for EVs, offers a choice between a per-mile charge and a flat annual fee through 2028, and will transition to mandatory EV participation before expanding to all light-duty vehicles by 2033. Utah described its voluntary EV road usage charge program, quarterly reporting, privacy protections, and legislative scenarios for removing the cap or making participation mandatory. Oregon outlined its constitutional cost-responsibility framework and broader transportation funding challenges, including reliance on user fees and limited use of general-fund support.

Transcript Highlights:

• All the organizations that are funded by the Equal Access Fund also receive IOLTA funding. Okay.
• There’s litigation challenging many funding cuts, but we anticipate that, or we estimate that it’s somewhere
• Because the General Fund, one of the challenges we have, which is for another day, is that with all these
• know we need to fund.
• We still need that funding, but we understand the state's challenging financial times.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are getting, like other states, funding, and that funding is welcome and wonderful.
• It is the base funding that all states were eligible to apply for, and then there's a workload funding
• That funding is the flexible funding that Virginia will continue to compete for. ...is the flexible funding
• And to underscore the funding and the picture of how the funding is being deployed, you can see that
• It's a tough challenge.

Keywords: House Select Committee on Advancing Rural and Small Town Health Care, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , federal funding.
• , federal funding.
• There were some questions about funding earlier.
• Imagine if you have that funding earmarked to fund part of the Enough Act.
• I mean, there was an initial funder that funded it.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Businesses

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business held its final hearing of the session on H. 5187 and S. 3022, the Enough Act, with Chair Andy Vargas and Senator Adam Gomez opening by thanking committee members and stakeholders for their work during the session. The bills were described as a grant-based, place-based anti-poverty initiative intended to support cradle-to-career services by funding local nonprofits, schools, community organizations, and backbone entities that can coordinate housing, education, health, workforce, and family supports in high-poverty neighborhoods. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support of the bills. Speakers including Strategies for Children, Chelsea Public Schools, Bunker Hill Community College, Senator Sal DiDomenico, Rep. Kate Lipper-Garabedian, Rep. Antonio Cabral, the Harlem Children’s Zone’s Kwame Owusu Kesse and Jeffrey Canada, former Education Secretary Paul Reville, AFT Massachusetts, United Way, the Boston Foundation, Give Black Alliance, Eastern Bank Foundation, and others argued that poverty is a systems issue that schools alone cannot solve. They emphasized the need for local control, community voice, coordinated services, and long-term public-private investment, often citing examples from Chelsea, New Bedford, Springfield, Lowell, Boston, and other communities, as well as the Harlem Children’s Zone and Maryland’s similar model. Committee members asked several questions about how the bill would function in practice, including what organizations would do on day one, how it would interact with existing efforts like community schools, McKinney-Vento, and the Student Opportunity Act, and how it would be sustained over time. Witnesses said the act would help create or strengthen backbone organizations, reduce duplication, align existing resources, and leverage philanthropy and future revenue sources for long-term sustainability. No vote was taken during the hearing, but multiple speakers urged the committee to report the bill favorably and quickly.

Transcript Highlights:

• The challenge is now more urgent than ever.
• , community schools funding.
• It's not this structure, it's funding.
• Together, these challenges point to a broader issue: a system where the delivery of guidance, funding
• It's not going to fully fund CDE because that's not how CDE is funded.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee first heard two bills. AB 1665 by Assemblymember Pacheco would require school sports coaches to complete approved mental health training. Supporters said coaches are trusted adults who are often first to notice student-athlete distress, and a witness described personal experience with body image and disordered eating pressures in athletics. There was no opposition, and the bill was moved out of committee on a due pass as amended motion to Appropriations, ultimately passing 9-0 after add-on votes. AB 2316 by Assemblymember Hoover would allow charter schools to apply for the same financial hardship relief in the state school facilities program that traditional districts can seek. Supporters argued this would improve parity and help smaller and low-income charter schools access permanent facilities; some initially opposed agencies said their concerns were addressed by amendments. The bill also passed unanimously, 9-0, to Appropriations. The committee then took up a consent calendar containing 12 additional measures, including bills on education funding, facilities, and other school-related matters, plus a resolution. Those items were approved on a 7-0 vote, with the roll left open for add-on votes. After the bill hearing portion was recessed and later reconvened, additional members added votes to AB 1665, AB 2316, and the consent calendar, bringing each to 9-0. The committee then held an informational hearing on state-level education governance, centered on Governor Newsom’s proposal to restructure the California Department of Education and the role of the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, with AB 2117 serving as a policy vehicle carrying the same language and no action to be taken. Testimony came from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Education Commission of the States, and former CDE chief deputy Richard Zager. Witnesses reviewed the history of California’s governance structure, compared it with other states, and discussed accountability, legislative oversight, and the role of the superintendent under the proposal. Committee members raised concerns about preserving checks and balances, the fiscal implementation plan, county-office relationships, and whether the superintendent’s role would be reduced too far; no vote was taken at the informational hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• to our state, returning money, of course, to the general fund, and responding to the growing legal challenges
• In the contractor fund, is that only for people who've paid into the contractor fund?
• We must have a clear plan if or when we use the funds, and very importantly, how those funds will be
• That's what rainy day funds are for.
• , utilizing the rainy day fund appropriately, and then replacing the funds and staying on a solid fiscal

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Keywords: 1212, all

Transcript Highlights:

• While these funds are being implemented, the goal of this bill is to address the second challenge, a
• AB 917 staffing mandates assume stable funding that simply does not exist. yet.
• AB 401 a bill to support and stabilize funding for career technical education.
• On the issue of a common application for CTE funding.
• So it wouldn't be taking funds away from any other CTIG applicants.

Committee: House Education

Keywords: 988, house, all