Transcript Highlights:

• If it sits there in the budget, why not put it to health care?
• If it sits there in the budget, why not put it to health care?
• And if so, do you expect that in this normal budget year or budget cycle, or is it going to be an emergency
• only two months ago, make a mockery of the budget process and an independent. budget passed only two
• The 2025 budget included large assessment fee increases on licensees, The 2025 budget included large

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on August 20, 2025, and considered a large number of bills, with most of the discussion centered on election redistricting and several health, labor, environmental, and government-operations measures. The first major item was ACA 8, a constitutional amendment tied to a proposed November special election and temporary mid-decade congressional redistricting in response to partisan redistricting efforts in other states. Supporters, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, a 2020 redistricting commissioner, labor groups, and allies of the measure, argued it was necessary to defend democracy, protect representation, and respond to federal actions affecting California. Opponents, including Assemblymember Tom Lackey reading a statement for Assemblymember Gallagher and Assemblymember Dixon, argued the measure would undermine the independent redistricting commission, amount to a partisan power grab, and cost taxpayers roughly $230 million. Committee members also focused heavily on fiscal questions, including litigation costs and county election funding, and Department of Finance staff said counties would be made whole and funding would be advanced. The committee ultimately voted the measure out on a B roll call. The committee then heard SB 280, the implementing bill for the special election and related redistricting process. Supporters repeated the argument that California needed to respond to Texas and other states, while opponents again emphasized the cost, the strain on county budgets, and the state’s broader fiscal pressures. Department of Finance witnesses said the election funding would be provided in advance and that the state would work with counties and the Secretary of State. The bill was moved out on a roll call after extended debate. The committee also advanced several other bills, including SB 283 on battery storage safety standards, SB 470 extending remote participation and open-meeting flexibility for state boards and commissions, SB 697 modernizing stream adjudication procedures, SB 513 requiring more accessible employee training records, SB 30 restricting transfer of older diesel locomotives, SB 841 and SB 81 creating protections for vulnerable facilities and health care spaces from immigration enforcement, SB 358 revising traffic impact fee standards, and SB 630 streamlining state parks land acquisitions. Other measures discussed included SB 62 expanding health coverage benefits, SB 68 requiring restaurant allergen disclosures, and the committee heard both support and opposition on SB 68 from the California Restaurant Association and consumer advocates. Supporters of the health and immigrant-protection bills emphasized patient safety, reproductive health, immigrant rights, and access to care, while opponents on the restaurant bill warned of added mandates and litigation risk for small businesses. Across the hearing, committee members frequently returned to fiscal impacts, county implementation burdens, and whether the bills would save money, cost money, or shift costs to local governments. Several bills were reported out of committee, often on A or B roll calls, with some members not voting on particular measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm David Pettit with the Legislative Budget Board.
• Legislative Budget Board. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• Estrada on the budget. My name's Chris Palazzolo.
• Trust me, my constituents are paying your budget.
• And what's your total budget? Our total?

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• By contrast, the state budget we passed last week was $114.5 billion, which is less than the total budget
• That is not a household budget.
• Miami-Dade County's adopted 226, adopted budget, Miami-Dade County's adopted 2026 budget is $12.9 billion
• We have seen local budgets, local government budgets soar.
• Our voters are facing higher Local budgets, local government budgets are soaring.

Summary: The Senate took up Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F, a proposed constitutional amendment on property tax reform. The measure would increase the homestead exemption in stages, lower the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limit county and municipal ad valorem tax revenues to specified uses such as public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resources, debt service, employee benefits, and certain administrative costs. Supporters, led by Senator Avila, argued the proposal would provide meaningful property tax relief and push local governments to rein in spending, while opponents warned it would shift costs to fees, reduce local flexibility, and threaten funding for core services. Several amendments were offered and rejected. Senator Sharief proposed an income-based circuit breaker for property tax relief; Senator Smith offered a sunset clause; and Senator Berman proposed revising the ballot statement to better match the amended proposal and remove outdated references. Each amendment failed on recorded votes. During questioning and debate, senators pressed Avila on the ballot language, the effect on local services, whether the legislature could later restrict local spending by statute, and whether renters would benefit. Avila said the ballot language was not his and repeatedly stated he was presenting the governor’s proposal, while also saying local governments would need to prioritize budgets and that future legislatures could address implementation details. After the amendment votes, the joint resolution was read a third time and moved into final debate. Supporters said the proposal would give homeowners relief and force fiscal discipline at the local level. Opponents, including Senators Nathan, Bracey Davis, Smith, Polsky, and Errington, argued the measure was rushed, lacked a completed fiscal analysis or replacement revenue, and could harm police, fire, libraries, parks, housing, and other local services. They also criticized the ballot summary as misleading, especially regarding the staged homestead exemption increase. The transcript ends during debate, before any final vote on the joint resolution itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• The LESC has already come out with their budget.
• Longer term budget planning is really important.
• , and they all kind of budget differently.
• We provide training to school board members on budget on the budget process and what is involved.
• Take budget off the table.

Transcript Highlights:

• But still, where is the language that allows schools and what budgets and whatnot and county budgets
• </c> budgets and whatnot and county budgets budgets and whatnot and county budgets to<00:24:02.080><c
• Um, our school budget hearing is at a different day, different time from our municipal budget.
• Um, our school budget hearing is at a different day, different time from our municipal budget.
• </c> municipal budget. municipal budget.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in executive session to consider HB 314, which would prohibit the use of federal, state, or local funds for lobbying activities. Representative Turkot offered a replace-all amendment intended to be a compromise measure focused on transparency and local control. He explained that the amendment narrows the bill to registered lobbyists, clarifies that public officials and employees who are not required to register as lobbyists are not restricted from testifying, and adds a process allowing municipalities to opt in to lobbying-related spending if approved locally and disclosed in annual reports. He also said the amendment was designed to address confusion he believes has been caused by misinformation about the bill’s effect on municipalities and associations. Committee members raised repeated concerns about how the amendment would apply to school districts, cooperative districts, counties, and other associations beyond the New Hampshire Municipal Association. Turkot and others said the language in RSA 15 and the added references to RSA 318-A were intended to cover lobbying entities generally, while the NHMA section was included because it is separately addressed in statute. Several members questioned whether the amendment’s intent was clear enough without explicit references to schools and counties, and whether the committee should have held a public hearing on the substantially revised language. Supporters argued the amendment was clear, that school districts and municipalities are distinct legal entities, and that cooperative districts could handle the issue through their existing annual-report and voting processes. The discussion also covered how local approval would work, including whether the proposal would require an opt-in vote and how county budgets would reflect lobbying-related dues or expenses. Members noted that in cooperative districts and county settings, approval would likely be handled through existing budget or annual report procedures, with majority vote rules applying where relevant. No final vote on the amendment or bill is reflected in the transcript excerpt, but the committee spent most of the session debating the scope, clarity, and transparency requirements of the proposed changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 4 will come to order.
• Permanent long-term commitments in this budget environment.
• The motion is to adopt staff recommendation to approve the request as budgeted.
• The motion is to adopt staff recommendation to approve the request as budgeted.
• And the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee 4 is now adjourned.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Education Finance.
• Assembly Budget Committee No. 2 on Human Services and the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Education
• Four C's Sonoma County's budget grew from $25 million to $57 million.
• To pull this funding now wouldn't just be a budget cut.
• Additionally, the Governor's budget includes some statutory changes.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• as we work together to approve a balanced budget.
• budget perspective.
• total funds compared to the 2025 enacted budget.
• in the governor's budget.
• The budget methodology serves to work that out.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services heard an informational hearing on child welfare, foster care, community care licensing, child support, and related budget issues. CDSS described the Governor’s proposed child and family services budget, emphasized a family-centered and kin-first approach, and reported that foster care entries and congregate care placements have declined over the past decade. Witnesses also highlighted the importance of extended foster care to age 21, while noting persistent racial disparities for Native American and Black children and the need for stronger prevention, family finding, and community-based supports. A major focus was the proposed tiered rate structure (TRS), which CDSS said would shift funding from placement-based rates to child-centered supports, including care and supervision, strength-building dollars, and immediate needs funding paired with high-fidelity wraparound services. CDSS and county representatives said implementation is on track, with foundational policy guidance expected by the end of the year, CANS/CFT timeliness targeted by year-end, and the CWS CARES system nearing go-live in October 2026. Counties and providers raised concerns about whether the rate model and wraparound capacity will be sufficient, especially for higher-acuity youth, and asked for more data, clearer guidance, and continued collaboration. County Welfare Directors Association representatives also requested continued emergency response funding and an extension of flexible family supports, arguing both are needed to stabilize front-end child welfare work and bridge to TRS. Providers from FFAs and STRTPs warned that insurance costs, provider closures, and the transition to TRS could threaten service capacity unless the state addresses long-term insurance and reimbursement issues. LAO noted the Governor’s budget contains no new child welfare augmentations and said the main General Fund change reflects the expiration of one-time funding. No votes were taken; members instead asked for follow-up data, technical assistance, and possible future legislative or trailer bill solutions, including on insurance and implementation timelines.

Transcript Highlights:

• they want, but the budget is the budget and we have to live within the means of the budget.
• they want, but the budget is the budget and we have to live within the means of the budget.
• they want, but the budget is the budget and we have to live within the means of the budget.
• they want, but the budget is the budget and we have to live within the means of the budget.
• </c> on side because we utilized our budget. on side because we utilized our budget.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education heard several advice-and-consent nominations to the School Facilities Authority. For GM779, Shelley Pa was introduced as a nominee for a term ending June 30, 2029. The Department of Education supported her nomination, citing her large-scale operations and stakeholder-engagement experience. In her testimony, Pa said she retired from community policing, wanted to give back to teachers and students, and believed her strengths were collaboration, listening to community input, and helping balance differing priorities. Committee members questioned her about the construction and infrastructure focus of the board, her lack of direct construction experience, and how she would handle disagreements and budget limits; she responded that she would rely on collaboration, ask questions, and keep decisions centered on students, teachers, and the community while staying within budget. The committee then heard GM777 and GM778 for Robert Davis, with terms ending June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2029. Davis described more than 30 years with the Department of Education, including roles as teacher, coach, counselor, vice principal, principal, and complex area superintendent, and said he had worked on major facilities projects and managed pandemic-era funding. He emphasized communication, transparency, and trust, and explained that his experience on the Early Learning Board helped him understand how to set policy, identify schools for pre-K, and use data and community factors in decision-making. Members asked how he would handle SFA’s growing pains, the need to balance DOE wishes with practical and budgetary limits, and the board’s role when the legislature controls funding; Davis said the board must keep communication open, include the right people, and make sensible decisions that move projects forward without stalling. For GM780, nominee Michael Unbasami was introduced for a term ending June 30, 2029. The Department of Education supported him, highlighting over five decades of public service and experience in facilities management, finance, and legislative affairs. Unbasami said he had recently retired after 31 years as associate vice president for administrative affairs for the community colleges and had extensive experience with facilities planning, construction, renovation, repairs, and working within budgets. He stated that the DOE should be treated as the SFA’s client because it knows student, teacher, and facility needs best, while SFA’s role is to implement construction work and collaborate on priorities. Committee members pressed him on how to balance DOE requests with practical project delivery, especially for teacher housing and other non-classroom needs, and he said the legislature funds the work, SFA must keep projects moving, and the workflow should involve collaboration but also realistic decisions that fit the budget and avoid delays.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is just um budget.
• </c> budget.
• Um it is a third of our budget budget.
• </c> largest single line item in the budget. largest single line item in the budget.
• </c> this con through the joint budget this con through the joint budget committee<01:02:42.640><c> is

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> While this is primarily a budget While this is primarily a budget document,<00:00:50.160><c> I</
• budget budget bills.<00:01:05.199><c> We</c><00:01:05.439><c> have</c><00:01:05.600><c> a</c><00:01:
• </c> a more detailed breakdown of the budget. a more detailed breakdown of the budget.
• Senator Draheim. budget rules. Um we've we have ade budget rules.
• </c> Senate budget rule or budget rule Senate budget rule or budget rule B6.<01:04:59.119><c> There</

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Carol Henderson, our longtime budget Carol Henderson, our longtime budget director<00:02:14.879>
• </c> of the total general fund budget of the total general fund budget and<00:02:57.040><c> some</c><
• </c> setting where a judicial branch budget setting where a judicial branch budget should<00:03:10.480
• </c> April as we go through the next budget April as we go through the next budget cycle<00:13:38.399
• </c> budget request um in the next bianium. budget request um in the next bianium.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Interim Joint Budget Review Subcommittee on Justice and Judiciary met without a quorum and heard an update from the Administrative Office of the Courts on the judicial branch budget. AOC Director Zach Ramsey and budget director Carol Henderson outlined the branch’s current funding structure, noting that fiscal year 2026 general fund support is about 2.77% of the state general fund, below the National Center for State Courts’ typical 2% to 4% range. They emphasized Kentucky’s unusual responsibility for courthouse facilities, with the judicial branch directly involved in construction, maintenance, and operations across 229 facilities in all 120 counties. AOC said nearly 91% of its general fund is spent on personnel and other non-discretionary costs, and that the branch has long relied on agency revenue, restricted fund carryforwards, and vacancy credits to balance court operations. Members were told that Senate Bill 25 required a $34.5 million transfer into a reserve account, part of which was used to purchase the Chamberlain Avenue building in Frankfort. AOC reported that only $11.9 million remains in restricted funds, while it projects needing about $13.5 million to cover fiscal year 2026 obligations, not including roughly $9 million in flood-related remediation costs for Hardin and Franklin counties, much of which it expects to recover through insurance and FEMA. Looking ahead to the next biennium, AOC said it will seek full funding of court operations at $341 million annually, a $13.5 million increase to bring current services into the base appropriation rather than relying on reserves. It also previewed additional requests, including a 15% across-the-board pay parity plan for Kentucky Court of Justice personnel, replacement of declining master commissioner fee revenue tied to 141 deputy circuit court clerk positions, funding for technology subscription and case management system costs, JAV audiovisual system upgrades, AEDs and medical kits for courthouses, and other staffing and operational needs. Senator Funky Frommeyer asked whether the 15% salary proposal was included in the $13.5 million increase; AOC said it was not, and that it would be an additional request. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> all the budget requests we just heard. all the budget requests we just heard.
• This is our current base budgets.
• <00:31:50.799><c> for</c> budget for budget for 2627<00:31:52.960><c> was</c><00:31:53.360><c> reduced
• </c><00:32:52.080><c> for</c> 20.7% increase to the base budget for 20.7% increase to the base budget
• Uh are there any veterans budget.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's not just this budget area, it's every budget area.
• And it's not just this budget area, it's every budget area.
• c><01:31:52.800><c> every</c><01:31:53.120><c> budget</c> this budget area, it's every budget this budget
• How much of our budget that we passed last year, this current budget, as the budget projections came
• budget, passed last year, this current budget, as<01:37:30.639><c> the</c><01:37:30.880><c> budget</

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> voters against passing a school budget. voters against passing a school budget.
• </c> massive $ 51 million back of the budget massive $ 51 million back of the budget cut<04:19:55.279
• I really this budget should be out.
• ><c> small</c><04:25:23.120><c> business</c> hardest budget for any small business hardest budget for
• </c> last 18 months of the budget even worse. last 18 months of the budget even worse.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you very much. district's operating budget passed at district's operating budget passed at our<
• </c> much as we possibly can into our budget much as we possibly can into our budget and<02:01:41.400
• </c> property taxes regardless of our budget property taxes regardless of our budget so<02:03:44.360>
• </c> then you know just like with any budget then you know just like with any budget I<02:07:06.719><
• budget budget for Manchester this is the budget budget for Manchester so<04:43:25.878><c> the</c><04

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met in executive session and first took up HB 193, which limits the maximum credits per course eligible for the Dual and Concurrent Enrollment Program. Representative Ladd said the bill clarifies that eligible courses may not exceed four credits and was requested by the community college system. Representative Earth offered an amendment to make the bill effective on passage, which the committee adopted 18-0. The committee then approved HB 193 as amended by an 18-0 OTPA vote and placed it on the consent calendar. The committee next retained HB 295, concerning School Building Aid program funds, after Representative Spillsbury said the building aid bills were complex and needed more work. The motion to retain passed 18-0, with the chair explaining that retained bills can be revisited later and that related language could be moved among building aid bills. HB 354 was not acted on because the chair said the Department of Education and others had suggested possible changes that should be worked out first. HB 366, another school building aid bill, was also retained 18-0 for the same reasons as HB 295. The committee then considered HB 494, which funds the math learning communities program. Representative Earth offered an amendment to flat-fund the program, reducing the proposed increase by a net $50,000 and keeping funding at current levels for the biennium. After discussion about budget pressures and the program’s role in supporting math instruction and professional development, the amendment passed 18-0, and the bill as amended was approved 18-0 and placed on consent. Finally, the committee took up HB 515, which would repeal charter public school eligibility for state school building aid. Representative Popovici-Muller moved inexpedient to legislate, arguing charter schools should not be treated differently from other public schools, while Representatives Luno and Damon opposed the motion, saying charter schools differ in governance and financial risk and should not receive limited state building aid. The motion failed 10-8, so HB 515 was sent to the regular calendar. The committee assigned Representative Damon to the minority report and Representative Popovici-Muller to the majority report, with a noon deadline the next day. The committee then began HB 716, an appropriation for the dual and concurrent enrollment program. Representative Ladd described the program as a successful affordability measure that saves families money and supports college access. Representative Earth offered an amendment to flat-fund the program at current levels, reducing the proposed increase by $500,000 in each year of the biennium. Shannon Reed of the Community College System said the change could limit enrollment or the number of funded courses, though students could still take additional courses at their own expense. Representative Ladd explained the program’s tuition structure and said the funding would help meet demand; the transcript cuts off before the final vote on HB 716.

Transcript Highlights:

• During the budget session um reform.
• </c> affirmatively appropriate in your budget affirmatively appropriate in your budget for<00:10:47.440
• </c><00:18:05.679><c> Just</c> to remove them from the budget. Just to remove them from the budget.
• /c><00:32:07.519><c> whatever</c> uh the budget is overstated by whatever uh the budget is overstated
• </c> that um continue in the um state budget that um continue in the um state budget documents<00:32:

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• through that budget agreement.
• </c> throughout the court system in a budget throughout the court system in a budget neutral<00:10:02.840
• First on the public safety budget.
• Next we'll move to the safety and security budget agreement.
• Senator Dibble, do you move adoption of the safety and security budget agreement?

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Conference Committee on Senate File 3432 met on May 15, 2026, and first approved a motion to continue meeting past midnight. Members then reviewed the public safety and judiciary budget agreement, including funding for non-fatal shooting clearance grants, a domestic violence task force, services for released adults and juveniles, trafficking prevention for youth, corrections bed impacts from assault and theft-related provisions, increased Philando Castile training reimbursements, and transfers into the Victims of Crime Account. The committee also noted that some items were removed because they had already passed as stand-alone bills, including impersonation of a peace officer and the grooming penalty, and that the first responder uniform ID task force would not be funded in this bill. Policy provisions discussed for the public safety side included a domestic violence response task force, trafficking and sexual exploitation prevention grants, juvenile re-entry services, the Minnesota clearance grant program, the Philando Castile Memorial Training Fund, confidentiality for victim statements to the Clemency Review Commission, the fourth-degree assault amendment for hospital or clinic security guards, the enhanced penalty for theft from a vulnerable adult, child sexual abuse material venue and evidence provisions, and revised language on prediction markets and the Attorney General’s administrative subpoena authority. The chair also said the committee had to make late fixes to some stakeholder-requested changes and expressed frustration about the timing. The committee then reviewed the safety and security budget agreement, which included funding for judicial security, a judicial security unit, security threat response, safe and secure courthouse grants, appeals court and district court security, state patrol deficiency funding, capital security screening and enhancements, legislative protective services, BCA threat assessment and investigation, a security services task force, legislative security reimbursements, and security for constitutional officers. The agreement also included technical court reallocation adjustments and DNR carry-forward authority for certain non-budgeted public safety costs incurred in 2026. After no public testimony was offered, the committee adopted both the public safety budget agreement and the safety and security budget agreement, directed non-partisan staff to prepare the conference committee report with technical and conforming changes, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the Senate budget on this—excuse me, do you have a follow-up for Representative Orcutt?
• Okay, so the funding source for this in the Senate budget is from what fund?
• to determine if these projects would be eligible for the capital budget?
• For a reference point, what is your biennial budget? Oh, man, staff just for staff?
• For your staff requirements, our operating budget is approximately $1.4 million.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In the Senate budget on this—excuse me, do you have a follow-up? Representative Orcutt, okay.
• So the funding source for this in the Senate budget is from what fund?
• determine if these projects would be eligible for the capital budget?
• For a reference point, what is your biennial budget?
• For staff requirements, our operating budget is approximately $1.4 million.

Summary: The committee held public hearings on two transportation-related bills. For Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5374, staff explained that the bill would require tribal governments to be included in Growth Management Act transportation coordination and in preparation of county six-year transportation programs, and would create a tribal traffic safety coordinator grant program through the Traffic Safety Commission. Fiscal impacts were described as indeterminate and scalable, with estimates for staffing, grants, and local government coordination costs. The Association of Counties testified in support, saying the bill would better align existing tribal consultation processes with transportation planning and would not force counties to restart plans already near adoption. For Engrossed Senate Bill 5649, staff said the bill would create a Washington State Supply Chain Competitiveness Infrastructure Program to provide grants and loans for public and tribal ports with public operations, with DOT setting priorities and criteria in collaboration with supply chain stakeholders. Fiscal notes estimated significant staffing and program costs, but the amount would depend on appropriations; no funds were included in the current Senate Transportation budget. The Washington Public Ports Association and representatives from the Port of Everett and Port of Port Angeles supported the bill, arguing it would help ports address congestion, improve freight efficiency, and leverage federal matching funds for major infrastructure projects. The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board director said many proposed projects would not qualify for FMSIB funding because they are not on strategic freight corridors, which is why a separate program may be needed. Members asked about timing, whether the tribal planning bill would require counties to start over on plans already near completion, and how the port bill would interact with existing funding sources and FMSIB eligibility. Staff and witnesses said the tribal bill was intended to work with existing coordination processes and not force counties to restart, while the port bill was meant to fill gaps where current programs do not apply. The chair then reviewed amendment deadlines for budget and committee bills, and the meeting adjourned for caucuses.