Transcript Highlights:

• So what this would do is, instead, previously I had distributed one where it created a new seven and
• <00:29:16.480> one instead previously I had distributed one instead previously I had distributed
• And to the degree that some other state has been doing it right the right way for a considerable amount
• <03:19:05.000> of<03:19:05.120> time, way for considerable amount of time, way for
• considerable amount of time, I<03:19:06.360> I<03:19:06.600> I'm<03:19:06.800> not

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Of that amount, we have received only $7,500 in reimbursement.
• Yeah, that's a cumulative amount. Yes.
• So, again, we're seeing very rapid change in 2026 in the amounts that are being reimbursed.
• It's such a huge amount of money.
• So the higher amount for marketing was when less people knew about it.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused first on behavioral health, especially hard-to-treat serious mental illness through the lens of anosognosia, and the impact of potential federal Medi-Cal reductions under H.R. 1. A family member, Dawn Marie Anderson, described her son’s long cycle of psychosis, homelessness, arrests, jail-based stabilization, and repeated relapse when treatment ended, arguing that anosognosia is a symptom of illness rather than refusal of care. She and other witnesses urged more consistent, long-term treatment, family involvement, medication support, and stronger county and state coordination. County and provider representatives said the current system still relies too heavily on crisis response and leaves people with serious mental illness falling through gaps between managed care, county specialty care, housing, and justice systems. Testimony from the California Behavioral Health Association, Santa Barbara County Behavioral Health, and the County Behavioral Health Directors Association emphasized that people with anosognosia often cannot self-navigate care, making a “no wrong door” system essential. They said H.R. 1 could destabilize coverage and shift costs to counties, while existing private insurance coverage is inadequate for early psychosis and related services. Witnesses highlighted CalAIM, jail in-reach, assertive community treatment, mobile crisis, supportive housing, and LEAP-style family training as promising tools, but said counties still need more resources and that the state should strengthen both Medi-Cal and private insurance behavioral health coverage. A public commenter from Lake County said private insurers denied most claims, especially for unlicensed staff providing case management and mobile crisis services. The committee then heard an update on the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, including the virtual services platforms BrightLife Kids and Soluna and the CYBHI fee schedule program. DHCS reported strong growth in app registrations, coaching sessions, referrals, and positive user outcomes, and said the platforms are serving children and youth statewide, including many who had never previously accessed care. For the fee schedule, DHCS said 72% of school districts and 50 of 58 county offices of education are participating across six cohorts, with $9.6 million reimbursed to date and 41,556 students represented in claims. Members pressed the department on the program’s roughly $69.3 million administrative cost, the slow pace of reimbursement relative to the investment, and the late delivery of requested data. DHCS responded that many claims are still being submitted, most denials are correctable, and local implementation is still scaling up through technical assistance and capacity grants.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:18:06.000> of make sure that an adequate amount of make sure that an adequate amount of
• What's the dollar amount on this?
• Um, and those amounts were the amounts that we projected based on the individuals that we are aware of
• > amounts<03:06:30.720> that<03:06:30.880> we those amounts were the amounts that
• we those amounts were the amounts that we projected<03:06:32.160> based<03:06:32.479> on

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Division 3 work session focused largely on amendment 1176 to HB 2, which would have incorporated the substance of HB 548FN, a House-passed bill creating a direct-pay or membership-based model for health care facilities. Representative Mlan described the proposal as a way to increase competition in health care by extending the direct-care model used in primary care to facilities, arguing it could encourage innovation and that concerns about widespread harm to critical access hospitals were overstated. He pointed to Oklahoma’s long-standing Surgical Center model as evidence that the approach had not spread broadly or displaced hospitals there. Several members and witnesses raised concerns. Representative Stringham questioned whether the model would shift profitable services and patients away from existing hospitals, potentially worsening their finances and affecting Medicaid-related funding. David Ross, speaking for county nursing homes, opposed the language because it also removed moratoriums on nursing home, skilled nursing, inpatient rehabilitation, and self-pay beds, warning that it could increase pressure on Medicaid rates and undermine community-based care. Ben Bradley of the New Hampshire Hospital Association said the proposal appeared to create a separate regulatory framework for direct-pay facilities and raised concerns about patient safety, CMS participation rules, and a separate patient bill of rights. The chair concluded that, because HB 548 was already moving through the Senate, the HB 2 process was not the best vehicle for the policy and that the issue should be left to the Senate’s more deliberative committee process. Representative Ferski moved to not accept or remove amendment 1176 from the agenda, and the committee approved the motion by roll call, 9-0, withdrawing the item from HB 2.

Transcript Highlights:

• President, is it takes 5% of the appropriated amount of that $40 million, and it dedicates that money
• Request a roll call. we're just setting aside a small amount we're just setting aside a small amount
• And<00:36:43.040> given<00:36:43.360> the<00:36:43.440> amount<00:36:43.720>
• Time is needed to get this money into the pipeline, to get the money distributed for the counties to
• And so, this dollar amount in this bill is approximately half that.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:38:10.720> that not a pupil specific dollar amount that not a pupil specific dollar amount
• <00:53:13.960> to<00:53:14.200> M to Grants distributed to M to Grants distributed
• Um, and so I think there's a certain amount of that even, um, you know.
• um so I think there's a certain amount um so I think there's a certain amount of<03:46:37.279>
• to tackle everything with equal amount to tackle everything with equal amount of<04:07:00.199>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard HB 295, which would make school building aid funds non-lapsing/non-APS. Representative Cahill said the bill was intended to keep any unused building aid money available for future projects, potentially helping move projects up the priority list or provide a little more funding for school construction. Members asked about how much money has lapsed in past years, whether the education trust fund and building aid are separate, and whether any lapsing dollars could be used to pay down debt. Department of Education official Jim Carney said about $29.1 million would be available if building aid is funded to the $50 million maximum in FY26, confirmed that the fund currently lapses, and said the department would gather historical lapse data. Committee members also discussed whether a dedicated fund structure could achieve the same goal, and the chair noted that the education trust fund statute includes school building aid as one of its uses. No vote was taken; the hearing was closed and the committee said it would later hold a work session after receiving more information. The committee then took up HB 237, introduced by Representative Dan McGuire, which would prohibit the use of special education state funds and differentiated aid for students not receiving special education services. The New Hampshire School Boards Association, through Becky Wilson, opposed the bill as written, saying it was unclear, potentially unnecessary, and difficult to implement because adequacy and differentiated aid are distributed as part of a districtwide lump sum rather than as student-specific dollars. She explained that special education costs are embedded across district budgets, including staffing, training, transportation, and instruction, and that some staff and services benefit both special education and general education students. Wilson also said differentiated aid is not tied to a specific pupil and is used at the district’s discretion, though it is intended to support students with greater needs. Committee members pressed on whether the bill would require districts to track money by individual student, whether it could conflict with federal special education law, and whether it would affect least restrictive environment requirements. Wilson said making the funds student-specific could create privacy and accounting problems and could make it difficult to staff inclusive classrooms, though she did not give a definitive legal opinion on federal compliance. She agreed that students who are not eligible for special education would not be included in the separate catastrophic/special education aid reimbursement program. The discussion continued into the second section of the bill, with members exploring how adequacy aid and differentiated aid are used in practice, but no action was taken during the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The amount allocated.
• We provide seed money, usually in amounts far smaller than you all would consider.
• The previous year, we gave out 33 million in grant funds and 77 million in distributions.
• Is our best assessment on the amount of employees that we need?
• It's also with the state fire marshals and distributing all of their grants.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So if you go broad spectrum, the amount—so we have spent a tremendous amount of our own money hunting
• They've been distributed at places like the TSCRA convention, places like that.
• And they go ahead and do it and distribute it across the state.
• In the 60s, 70s, and 80s with this and the amount of flies that we had.
• Here, there are fewer homes available for them relative to the amount of animals here.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, so in the interest of the amount of power these, uh, water districts have now, um, I think it's high
• So you would, you would buy this camera system and you would distribute that cost, that single cost amongst
• And your customers are paying the most they can for their water bill, and that money has to be distributed

Bills: HB 279, HB 310, HB 365, HB 391, HB 420, HB 422, HB 638

Keywords: HB 279, uranium mining, uranium permit, production area authorization, production zone, Texas Water Code, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, contested case hearing, administrative hearing, groundwater restoration, groundwater baseline, water quality, mining permit, restoration values, natural resources, environmental regulation, in-situ uranium mining, permit amendment, public hearing

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<00:04:24.720> and chain, manufacturing, distribution, and chain, manufacturing, distribution
• Just last year, we did distribute over 572,000 pounds of food.
• um remaining amount. We did do two RFPs. um remaining amount. We did do two RFPs.
• of the award for each grantee, the amount each grantee award has been dispersed to, the amount of the
• of the award for each grantee, the amount each grantee award has been disbursed to, the amount of the

Bills: HF4080, HF3693, HF1857, HF4350

Keywords: agriculture, livestock, retailers, ownership interest, exclusive contracts, meat packing companies, dominant retailers, state law, Department of Agriculture, appropriation, funding, agriculture policy, state budget, animal welfare, cat declawing, animal cruelty, therapeutic procedures, civil penalties, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, aquatic life

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. whether a contract resulted from the POC and the amount of the contract in its terms.
• What are sort of your average annual distributions?
• of vehicles coming into downtown, a huge amount of people coming in.
• So that's a 90% reduction in the amount of work."
• It'll cost an incredible amount of money in real estate. Thank you. Thank you.

Summary: The subcommittee heard an informational update on the state’s generative AI implementation and related oversight. Administration officials said several proof-of-concept projects have moved into minimum viable product phases, including work at CDTFA and Caltrans, and that CDPH has a May Revision request for up to $8 million to scale up its healthcare facilities inspections project. The Legislative Analyst’s Office urged the administration to publish a report on lessons learned from each POC and recommended limiting the new generative AI approval process to a pilot through the first two rounds of projects, with continued monthly meetings and stronger legislative oversight. Members pressed for more transparency and questioned why the CDPH request was not included in January; the administration said the cost estimate was not available then and that only one project is seeking additional resources beyond existing departmental budgets. The committee then reviewed a proposed $400 million loan from the Labor and Workforce Development Fund to the General Fund. Finance and the Labor Agency said the fund has grown because civil penalty revenues have risen sharply, and the loan would be repaid in 2029-30 with provisional language allowing earlier repayment if needed. The LAO agreed the fund could support the loan but warned that recent PAGA reforms may reduce future revenues. Public commenters, including labor and community groups, argued the money should instead support labor-law enforcement and outreach programs such as CWOP, and urged rejection of the loan. Members also heard a Department of Industrial Relations request for $19.1 million for phase two of Public Works Information Technology System Enhancements, which officials said will support labor-law enforcement and apprenticeship registration. The department said the project was delayed because a prior procurement did not result in a contract award and that completion is now expected in October 2026. The committee then took up an EDD Next reappropriation technical adjustment to extend UI fund spending authority through June 30, 2026; the LAO said the request was fine but again raised concerns about oversight of the larger modernization effort, which EDD said now totals more than $660 million and is expected to continue through 2029. Finally, the committee discussed DGS’s request for new parking facilities near the May Lee Building and a trailer bill shifting statewide telework policy language from DGS to CalHR while also expanding NDI eligibility for certain CEA employees. The LAO said the telework trailer bill should likely go through the policy committee process instead of budget, and union and employee witnesses strongly opposed it, arguing it would undermine bargaining rights and could be used to narrow telework. In a separate item on the governor’s return-to-office order, administration officials said departments are being directed to move to a four-day in-office expectation starting July 1, 2025, but they had no statewide cost estimate yet because departments are still assessing vacancies, exemptions, and space needs. Members criticized the lack of analysis and said the state should have clearer numbers before moving forward.