Transcript Highlights:

• We just fund ag. We need to fund tourism. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
• funded by a $3 recording fee.
• The fund is for opioid... ...funds.
• , additional funding.
• fund, correct?

Transcript Highlights:

• Also known as buckets of funding.
• We received a concentration of funding, but 19 of the small counties did not receive any funding under
• It was pointed out in the LAO report that we used our discretionary funding to fund these applications
• Rental assistance will be funded with a combination of general funds and federal funds.
• Funding for those funds is to be expended by 2028, and we have funding for the evaluation of the EHSSA

Transcript Highlights:

• Pension funding, long-term pension funding, determining contribution rates, measuring the program's funded
• of pension funds to fund pension issues.
• funds to fund and pension issues.
• pension fund.
• funded, which would have a significant impact on the LEOFF 1 pension fund.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The committee approved the July minutes and then received an informational presentation from the Office of the State Actuary on the financial condition of the state retirement systems. The actuary reported that employer contribution rates are generally declining, helped by strong investment returns and reduced funding for PERS 1 and TERS 1, while funded ratios have continued to improve; on a combined basis the plans were reported at 100% funded in 2024, with open plans above 95% and legacy plans varying by system. The presentation also reviewed projected rates and funded ratios under current assumptions, noted that pension costs are taking a smaller share of the state general fund, and discussed risks from investment volatility, policy changes, and demographic experience. Committee members asked about savings from lower rates, deferred asset smoothing, and how Washington compares with other states. The committee then considered the state actuary’s recommendation on long-term economic assumptions and adopted all four recommendations by roll call votes: inflation at 3.0%, general salary growth at 3.5%, membership growth for Plan 1 funding at 1.0%, and investment rate of return at 7.25%. The actuaries explained that the inflation and salary growth increases were driven largely by higher long-term inflation expectations, while the investment return recommendation matched the current statutory assumption. Members discussed the timing of the Pension Funding Council’s decision, the effect of tariffs and inflation uncertainty, and how assumption changes would affect future contribution rates and budgets, particularly for open plans. Staff then gave an update on the LEOFF 1 study, explaining the difference between being “ahead of schedule” and truly overfunded, and summarizing responses received from DRS, the State Treasurer, and the State Investment Board on the merger and restatement proposals. DRS said both bills could be administered, though the merger bill’s COLA banking provision would be challenging until its new system is ready; the Treasurer urged caution, especially about the restatement bill and the use of one-time funds; and the Investment Board said removing assets from the trust would have some transaction costs but likely small impacts. The committee discussed whether to invite additional agencies and local government groups to testify, and staff said more responses, including from Ice Miller and the State Actuary, were expected for the October meeting. Finally, the committee heard a briefing on PERS 1/TERS 1 COLA policy and related bills from the last session. Staff reviewed the committee’s prior ongoing COLA recommendation, the SCPP-endorsed bills that would have created a one-time 3% COLA followed by an ongoing COLA, the Senate merger bill, and a separate ad hoc COLA bill. Public testimony largely supported Plan 1 COLAs and stable contribution rates, while several speakers urged caution about transferring LEOFF 1 surplus assets or merging legacy plans, and others raised concerns about climate risk and the pension fund’s investments. No further committee action was taken on the COLA item during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• federal funds.
• about 37% general fund, 17% federal funds, and about 45% dedicated funds, which includes accounting
• fund and dedicated funds.
• funds.
• funds are used in our budgets as a dedicated fund.

Summary: The Senate Finance and House Appropriations committee met with a quorum present and began with questions about a Rural Health Funding Task Force. Members asked who created it, what notice was given, whether it was replacing JFAC, and whether it was separate from the governor’s task force. The chair said it was created by legislative leadership rather than this committee, that JFAC would still control funding decisions, and that the task force was intended to provide structure and policy direction if the funding moves forward. The committee then received a General Fund Daily Update from Legislative Services analyst Christopher LaHosette, who noted updated revenue projections, three introduced House bills with general fund fiscal impacts, and the green sheet’s totalizing function for tracking legislation. The main presentation was from the Department of Health and Welfare on the Division of Welfare, Mental Health Services, and Psychiatric Hospitalization budgets. Alex Williamson reviewed the divisions’ roles, staffing, and five-year spending trends, and outlined the governor’s recommendations, including Medicaid eligibility system changes tied to federal law, SNAP administrative cost shifts to the state, Medicaid expansion work requirements, restoration of transfer authority, and behavioral health requests tied to the Jeff D. settlement and Idaho Behavioral Health Plan. Director Juliet Sharon said the department’s requests were largely maintenance, restoration, or compliance items, including system changes for twice-yearly Medicaid redeterminations and work requirements. Members asked about the impact of federal changes, the $5 million increase in welfare operations, vacancy levels, endowment funds, and whether the department could compare SNAP administrative costs to other states. Several questions focused on mental health cuts, the former Center of Excellence, the request to combine adult and children’s mental health budgets, and the effect of reductions on crisis services, ACT services, and mobile crisis units. Sharon and Behavioral Health Administrator Ross Edmonds said the department was trying to preserve crisis and hospital services, maintain separate tracking for children and adults, and monitor access closely while complying with legal and federal requirements. The committee also discussed Magellan’s contract, audit findings, and managed care oversight. Sharon said Magellan is reviewed through monthly, quarterly, and annual deliverables and can be placed on corrective action plans; she also said the department has processes to prevent payments for deceased or ineligible individuals. Members asked about duplication of services, the use of endowment funds at state hospitals, the need for more behavioral health workforce data, and whether the department could share equipment or contract out maintenance at the psychiatric hospitals. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after indicating it would meet again Monday morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• . fund. fund.
• </c> the settlement fund. the settlement fund.
• </c> are for general funds. are for general funds.
• </c> need general funds. need general funds.
• </c> to fund to fund that<01:26:39.880><c> bill.

Summary: Division Three of the Finance Committee met in work session on April 20, 2026, to consider Senate Bills 481, 603, and 663, with the discussion focused primarily on SB 481, relative to the sale of the Sununu Youth Services Center property. The chair explained that the bill was advisory only and that the committee’s recommendations would go to full Finance on April 27. For SB 481, members reviewed conflicting provisions in the prior budget law about whether sale proceeds should go to the general fund or the Youth Development Center Claims and Administration Settlement Fund, and the bill was described as a compromise that would direct proceeds to the general fund before June 30, 2027, and to the settlement fund after that date. It was noted that the settlement fund had originally received about $20 million and had roughly $10 million remaining. The committee also received an extensive update from DCYF Director Marie Noonan on the new Youth Development Center in Hampstead. She reported that construction remained on schedule, with major structural and interior work complete, substantial completion expected in late summer or early fall 2026, and occupancy anticipated in early 2027. The presentation highlighted the facility’s design features, including single-occupancy bedrooms, sensory rooms, an education wing, medical and clinical suites, visitation space, a gym, and multiple outdoor courtyards, all intended to support a trauma-informed setting. Members asked about the facility’s funding, square footage, fencing, and scanner; staff said the building is about 34,000 square feet, funded entirely with federal ARPA state recovery funds to date, and that the scanner is on site but not yet operational pending policy and staff training. Committee members also raised concerns about the facility’s design and security. In response, DCYF said some concrete walls are required for structural and safety reasons, but they are being painted to maintain a brighter environment, and that the fencing will be about 15 feet high with privacy netting because the campus is shared with Hampstead. Officials said the new facility is legislatively limited to a maximum of 12 youth, while the current center can house 12 to 18, and emphasized that courts ultimately determine placements. No votes or final actions were taken during the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• funding as well.
• this is funds appropriated General funds this is funds of<00:54:17.599><c> the</c><00:54:17.799><c>
• These are federal funds, and federal funds usually come with restrictions already.
• These are federal funds, and federal funds usually come with restrictions already.
• It is just not clear to us what the funds are for, but these are federal funds, and federal funds usually

Summary: The hearing covered Senate Bill 426, which would create an early learning apprenticeship grant program. Testimony was overwhelmingly supportive from the City and County of Honolulu, the Department of Human Services, the Executive Office on Early Learning, the University of Hawaiʻi College of Education, the Attorney General’s office, the Early Childhood Action Strategy, Hawaii Children’s Action Network, the University of Hawaiʻi’s early childhood educator project, and a Zoom testifier who described the importance of investing in high-quality early childhood education. Committee discussion focused on the program’s estimated cost, with figures of about $14.5 million in 2025-26 and $15 million in 2026-27, and on whether the program would require ongoing base-budget funding. The committee recommended technical, non-substantive amendments, including a statewide-concern amendment and a deferred effective date, and both committees adopted the recommendation by vote. The committees then heard Senate Bill 1622, which would appropriate funds to establish the Aloha Intelligence Institute within the University of Hawaiʻi to support statewide artificial intelligence initiatives. University representatives described the proposal as the product of campus-wide input and outlined five pillars: governance and policy, outreach and engagement, research and development, workforce development, and AI tools for key sectors such as health care, creative industries, manufacturing, data science, astronomy, and climate change. Members questioned staffing distribution, tuition, enrollment timing, housing, campus placement, and whether positions would be permanent or temporary; the university said it planned about 10 positions across campuses, would start with internal resources, and would house the effort under the Vice President for Research and Innovation initially. The committees recommended an SD1 with the appropriation amounts blanked out, a July 31, 2050 effective date, and committee-report language on housing and West Oʻahu, and the higher education and labor/technology committees adopted the amended recommendation. Finally, the Higher Education Committee took up Senate Bill 1488, a housekeeping measure to consolidate existing University of Hawaiʻi conference center statutes into a single revolving fund structure, and Senate Bill 636, which would fund retention and internship coordinator positions and broader enrollment management efforts at the University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo. SB 1488 drew university support and no opposition. SB 636 prompted substantial questioning about Hilo’s declining enrollment, current retention rate of 72.8 percent, and the scope of the request, which includes not only two named positions but also about $432,000 for enrollment management initiatives such as data analysis, IT support, and other student services. Hilo said it is targeting 3 to 5 percent annual enrollment growth and that the positions would support recruitment, retention, internships, and data-driven enrollment strategy. The committee pressed for a clearer broader plan, but the discussion in the transcript ended before a final vote on SB 636 was shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• fund.
• The other fund I'm going to mention for right now is the miscellaneous revenue fund.
• Again, the miscellaneous revenue fund is primarily funded by tuition paid for those... ongoing.
• Again, the miscellaneous revenue fund is primarily funded by tuition paid for those.
• with dedicated funds or federal funds.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and first reviewed the Industrial Commission’s base budget and FY 2027 requests. The analyst and agency staff described the commission’s dedicated-fund structure, the IRIS technology modernization project, and several requested adjustments: ongoing support for IRIS maintenance, additional funding for the annual seminar and CWICS training, an increase for the Peace Officer Temporary Disability Fund due to rising claims, and replacement IT hardware. Members asked about the IRIS contract, seminar fees, and the crime victims compensation fund and general fund support. Agency staff said IRIS is still being supported by an outside vendor because OITS lacks the needed expertise, that seminar and training fees are already competitive and the plan is to expand services rather than lower fees, and that crime victims compensation could be covered temporarily by dedicated or federal funds if needed. No votes were taken on the Industrial Commission budget during the meeting. The committee then heard the Public Utilities Commission budget review. The analyst explained the commission’s dedicated funds, staffing, and the FY 2026 trailer appropriation tied to the Wildfire Standard of Care Act, along with a FY 2027 request for IT hardware only. Questions focused on a large variance in the indirect cost recovery fund, which staff attributed to timing of federal reimbursements and rent not being charged to that fund at the time. Commissioners and staff also received positive comments about the implementation of the wildfire-related duties. No action was taken on the PUC budget. Next, the Secretary of State’s budget was presented. The analyst outlined the office’s election, business, and commission functions, noted the prior $10 million election system upgrade, and described FY 2027 requests for a voter pamphlet and guide, overtime for the post-election audit team, and replacement technology. Secretary of State Phil McGrane and staff emphasized the rapid growth in business filings, the office’s revenue generation, and the need to maintain service levels, arguing against ongoing cuts. He said the voter pamphlet request is tied to statutory election-year mailings, the overtime reflects cyclical election workload, and the office is considering AI cautiously due to sensitive voter data. Members asked about business filing growth, the difference between a pamphlet and a voter guide, and the possible impact of hand-counting ballots; McGrane said hand-counting would mainly affect counties, not the state office. The meeting ended with scheduling remarks for the next day’s budget work and a note that the FY 2026 rescission bill was still being processed.

Transcript Highlights:

• being used to fund a portion of the Cal Fire General Fund shift.
• being used to fund a portion of the Cal Fire General Fund shift.
• , not General Fund.
• Did that take the place of General Fund funding for those projects?
• The funding that's proposed from Prop. 4 this year wasn't being funded by the General Fund previously

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> funds when we look across the country. funds when we look across the country.
• the index funds?
• Did I provide value to the fund?
• </c> we have some newer members to the fund. we have some newer members to the fund.
• that are the statewide funds or larger funds.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the prior meeting minutes, welcomed new staff member Sean Parks, and announced that it would not meet in November. The next meeting was scheduled for December 8 at 10:00 a.m., with the chair noting that pension bills would be heard then and emphasizing that all pension bills must go through the full process and include actuarial analysis. Brad Gross of the Public Pension Oversight Board presented a detailed review of Kentucky retirement systems’ investments and funding. He said fiscal year 2025 ended with about $50.5 billion in pension assets and $12.52 billion in retiree health assets, both up from the prior year. He reported strong investment performance across the systems, with all Kentucky public pension funds exceeding their policy benchmarks and the median peer return of 10.4%. He also discussed long-term return trends, asset allocation differences among the systems, fee levels, and cash flow, noting that cash flow remains a key monitoring issue and that supplemental appropriations have improved the cash position of some funds, especially the Kentucky State Police and TRS systems. Gross also explained that assumed rates of return have generally fallen over time, which increases unfunded liabilities and required contributions, and said the systems’ current assumptions range from 5.25% to 7.1%. He noted that the committee’s materials included peer comparisons and historical charts, and that all asset classes were within target ranges. In response to a question from Senator Funky From, Gross was asked about pension spiking and whether supplemental general fund contributions could create a false sense of security in cash flow analysis; the question was raised but not resolved in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Whereas after the Local Control Funding Formula was passed, that $400 million funding to incentivize
• Without this new funding, the program would still have $63 million in one-time funding to support a new
• oppose the combination of any of those funds into one singular funding source.
• and finding some of the nursing funding that was pulled out from one-time funds or other sources.
• the actual funding streams want to make sure that the legislature protects those funds in the state budget

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance heard an overview of the governor’s new Career Education Master Plan and related budget items. Labor Secretary Knox described the plan as an effort to reduce fragmentation across K-12, community colleges, workforce boards, and other systems by improving statewide and regional coordination, data sharing, skills-based hiring, career pathways, and wraparound supports such as child care, housing, food, and transportation. Members asked how success would be measured, how the plan would serve disconnected youth and adults, and whether the proposed data integration would rely on Cradle to Career; the secretary said it would. The Department of Finance said it was available to answer questions on the education side. The committee then reviewed existing CTE funding and oversight. The LAO, CDE, and Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office described the major ongoing programs, including CTIG, Perkins, K-12 Strong Workforce, and Community College Strong Workforce, and noted that many programs overlap in purpose and administration. Members repeatedly raised concerns about duplication, annual applications and reporting burdens, lack of clear outcome metrics, and whether funding incentives should be better aligned to regional collaboration. CDE and the Chancellor’s Office said they support alignment and dual enrollment, and Finance and CDE said LCFF/local match dollars are part of the funding structure. The committee also discussed child care as a barrier to participation and the need for better tracking of enrollment, completion, and job outcomes. On the consolidated application proposal, Finance proposed a study directing CDE to examine whether three long-standing CTE grant programs—Specialized Secondary Programs, CTIG, and California Partnership Academies—could be streamlined into a single application and reporting process. The LAO supported reducing administrative burden but noted that the largest programs, CTIG and K-12 Strong Workforce, were excluded from the proposal even though districts most often cite them as burdensome. CDE said it did not oppose the study but warned that statutory differences may limit consolidation. Members said the proposal should better address regional coordination, multi-year funding stability, and outcome measures rather than only simplifying paperwork. Finally, the committee heard a proposal for a $5 million ongoing California Education Interagency Council. GovOps said the council would provide a neutral venue for statewide coordination across education and workforce systems. The LAO opposed the proposal, arguing that existing bodies already provide coordination, the proposal does not change agency incentives, and the council would lack authority to implement decisions. Members expressed mixed views, with some supporting a coordinating body and others questioning whether it would differ from past efforts. No votes were taken during the portions summarized here, and the committee indicated it would hold some items open for further discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The special education funding stream...
• This pressure is real in our LEAs, and this funding really helps address long-standing insufficient funding
• share of the Prop 2 funds this year?
• consideration from available funds.
• We agree that we need more funding in there.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals on dual enrollment, reading difficulty screeners, special education, school facilities, and Commission on Teacher Credentialing programs. For dual enrollment, the Department of Finance described a $100 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund proposal to expand the Dual Enrollment Opportunities Grant Program, add flexibility for regional occupational centers, support justice-involved youth, prioritize higher-need LEAs, and allow funds for teacher professional development, along with a reduction in required instructional minutes for some dual enrollment students. The LAO recommended rejecting the new funding, saying it did not address a clear implementation barrier, while CDE supported the proposal and suggested reserving $10 million for technical assistance. Members and public commenters largely supported the expansion, with some urging additional technical assistance and broader access, including adult dual enrollment. The committee then discussed the reading difficulty screener proposal, which includes $40 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund for implementation costs and statutory changes that would delay formal screening until the 91st day for kindergarten and the 46th day for grades 1-2. Finance said the timing was intended to reduce over-identification and align screening with sufficient exposure to instruction; the LAO recommended rejecting the funding and redirecting it to a discretionary block grant. CDE supported the investment but cautioned about the timing restrictions, and several members and public witnesses argued the proposed deadlines were too rigid and could delay early intervention, while others supported the structured timeline as a way to improve accuracy and reduce misidentification. On special education, Finance presented a proposal to increase the statewide base rate to $99 per ADA through a $509 million ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund augmentation, plus COLA and a negative growth adjustment. The LAO said the proposal should be adopted but estimated it could be achieved with less funding; CDE strongly supported the increase, citing rising enrollment and local cost pressures, and district and SELPA representatives described large local funding gaps and growing expenditures. The committee also reviewed school facilities funding under Proposition 2, with Finance and the Office of Public School Construction describing $1.5 billion in proposed bond spending, existing balances for new construction and modernization, and the use of bond authority for natural disaster recovery, including projects related to recent fires. For the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the committee heard about the Student Teacher Stipend Program, the Golden State Teacher Grant, state operations funding for misconduct investigations and SB 848 implementation, and a $250 million proposal to extend the Teacher Residency Grant Program; CTC supported the proposals and highlighted new data systems and technical assistance, while public testimony broadly backed the investments and urged continued or additional funding for teacher recruitment, literacy screening support, and special education.

Transcript Highlights:

• And remember, the general fund funds Medicaid. >> Yes. >> The general fund funds corrections.
• </c> fund funds Medicaid. fund funds Medicaid. &gt;&gt; Yes. &gt;&gt; Yes. &gt;&gt; Yes.
• Federal funds being funds in it as well.
• Now funded heavily with federal funds.
• </c><01:05:22.880><c> and</c> reserve fund for the general fund and reserve fund for the general fund

Transcript Highlights:

• So 55% of our funding comes from the General Fund.
• They are 100% funded by the General Fund.
• are 100% General Fund.
• Another question has to do with GGRF funding. GGRF funding is very volatile.
• it from the General Fund.

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview from the California Conservation Corps on its 50-year history, current operations, and budget proposals. Director J.P. Patton described the CCC’s work in conservation, disaster response, education, and workforce development, noting 26 facilities, about 3,000 Corps members annually, and a funding mix of roughly 55% General Fund and 45% reimbursements. Members praised the program and asked about revenue sources, recruitment, retention, and post-service tracking. The CCC said it has a 5,000-person waitlist, uses first-come, first-served admissions with minimal eligibility requirements, and is working to improve data on outcomes. The committee also discussed the Greenwood Residential Center, where the CCC seeks staffing and operating funds to reopen a rebuilt facility in El Dorado County; the LAO suggested considering fewer new members or a delayed opening to reduce General Fund pressure, but no vote was taken and the item was held open. The committee then considered a CCC wildfire readiness proposal to move hand crews to a seven-day operational schedule. CCC and Cal Fire representatives said the change is needed because wildfire is now year-round and because the current model leaves crews unavailable in many months due to staffing gaps. They said the proposal would improve reliability for Cal Fire, preserve training opportunities for Corps members, and better align the CCC with Cal Fire’s 66-hour workweek. The LAO supported the concept but recommended considering lower-cost alternatives, such as relief staffing or partial reimbursement. Members also discussed the decline in incarcerated fire crews, with Cal Fire explaining that reforms and eligibility changes have reduced the pool of incarcerated people who qualify for camp and fire work. One member raised the use of goats and grazing for fuel reduction, and staff responded that such methods can help with prevention but cannot replace hand crews for suppression. The item was held open. Cal Fire then presented its department overview, emphasizing its expanded workforce, year-round wildfire response, vegetation management, community preparedness, and partnerships with federal, local, tribal, and private entities. Members asked about contract counties such as Orange County, reforestation and seedling capacity, federal reimbursement, and the 66-hour workweek rollout. Cal Fire said it is still below the seedling capacity needed for post-fire reforestation and relies heavily on public-private partnerships. The committee also reviewed a proposal for permanent funding for defensible space inspections. Cal Fire said it needs 31 positions and ongoing General Fund support to replace temporary funding that expires in 2027 and to maintain a goal of 250,000 inspections per year. The LAO said the proposal has merit but suggested alternatives such as a different General Fund/GGRF mix, reinstating an SRA fee, or approving the positions on a one-time basis. Members generally supported the work but raised budget concerns, and the proposal was held open. Finally, Cal Fire began presenting a fixed-wing pilot and mechanics contract increase, explaining that its aviation fleet has grown and become more complex, requiring more pilots and maintainers for year-round operations. The department said labor market pressures have increased contractor costs and that the contract is needed to support continuous aerial firefighting readiness. The transcript cuts off before further discussion or any action on that item.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the provisions in the bill is a resilience loan fund, and that's a fund that would be used by
• Are those currently funding other funds and other projects? When it comes to resilience needs.
• Are those currently funding other funds and other projects? Yes, sorry, thank you.
• professionally directed funding.
• than there is available funding.

Bills: S2542

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets

Keywords: climate resilience, resilience bond bill, environmental bond, infrastructure spending, flood control, coastal resilience, PFAS, clean water, wetlands, nature-based solutions, housing permitting, flood disclosure, land conservation, biodiversity, forest reserves, municipal vulnerability preparedness, MVP grant program, food security, agricultural resilience, solid waste

Transcript Highlights:

• our federal funds.
• We should be funded, and they took our funds away.
• We had 10 that we were going to fund, and they're not going to get funded from us.
• performing arts payroll fund.
• There's funding available.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on how recent federal actions are affecting arts, culture, humanities, libraries, museums, and the creative economy in California. Chair Ben Allen and Vice Chair Chris Ward opened by describing the hearing as a response to proposed and ongoing federal cuts to the NEA, NEH, IMLS, and public broadcasting, as well as grant terminations and leadership changes at cultural institutions. Several members emphasized the economic and civic importance of the arts, while one Republican member argued for greater ideological diversity in the arts and noted the loss of music programs in small schools. Testimony from Aaron Harky of Americans for the Arts and Jolie Fisher of SAG-AFTRA described the impact of federal policy on grants, jobs, and production. Harky said executive orders and the FY 2026 budget proposal threaten arts agencies and arts education, and that rescinded grants are causing hiring freezes, shutdowns, and losses for small organizations, especially in rural and underserved communities. Fisher focused on runaway film and television production, outdated tax rules, and the need for federal incentives, intellectual property protections, and action on AI and digital replicas. Members also discussed bipartisan support, the role of business and tourism partners, and the need to include more diverse voices in arts advocacy. The second panel featured Rick Noguchi of California Humanities, Greg Lucas of the State Library, and Danielle Purcell of the California Arts Council. Noguchi said NEH funding was cut immediately, putting California Humanities’ grantmaking and documentary programs at risk and prompting consideration of litigation and possible state support. Lucas reported that IMLS funding for California libraries was briefly canceled but partly restored, though a budget gap remains. Purcell said the California Arts Council is still awaiting federal award language for state partnership funds, but NEA grant terminations and the proposed elimination of federal cultural agencies create major uncertainty; she also said the council is assessing the damage and tracking impacts on grantees. Members asked about measuring outcomes, AI’s threat to creative work, documentary funding losses, and possible state and national strategies to protect cultural institutions and jobs.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll first describe how the fund works and then the new council that is to oversee the fund and a few
• But what we know is that that funding is not sustainable as general fund state.
• So you refer to the failed California fund, or the depleted California fund.
• There’s also the investment in prevention and recovery funding, 1168 funding.
• And then, of course, does this let the general fund off the hook for 1168 funding?

Bills: HB2275 , HB2238

Committee: House Agriculture & Natural Resources

Keywords: wildfire prevention, Washington wildfire council, fire safety, environmental protection, state regulations, HB 2238, HB2238, statewide food security, food security strategy, hunger, food insecurity, food access, food assistance, anti-hunger, nutrition education, food system literacy, agricultural viability, supply chain resilience, Washington Department of Agriculture, food policy forum

Transcript Highlights:

• funds; $2.2 billion is from special funds; and $625 million is from General Funds.
• Fund loan.
• by opioid settlement funds, not general funds.
• by opioid settlement funds, not general funds.
• being proposed to be funded, what's not being proposed to be funded?

Transcript Highlights:

• There is a board, and the funds are placed in a dedicated early childhood education fund.
• Now, on the disbursements of the fund, of course, a board will disperse the funds. Correct.
• Can you state the fund again? Yeah, so it is the Community Children's Services Fund.
• how to use those funds?
• Appointed, sorry—appointed by the fund. Right. The fund appoints the board. Yes.

Committee: House Ways and Means

Summary: The committee heard two measures. First, Representative Jim Murphy presented HJR 169, the Taxpayer Protection Act, modeled on Colorado’s TABOR. He said it would cap government spending growth at inflation plus population growth, apply across state and local governments, require voter approval for tax increases or spending above the limit, and include refunds for excess revenue. He also said he would offer amendments to include fees and surcharges and to count tax abatements against the spending base, with school population used for school districts. Support testimony came from Americans for Prosperity and ALEC, both praising the proposal as a way to restrain spending and increase accountability. Committee members asked about abatements, emergency exceptions, population declines, and how the measure would interact with Hancock and local taxing districts; the sponsor and witnesses said it would be stricter than Hancock and would allow emergency spending only with supermajority approval. No vote was taken, and the hearing on HJR 169 was closed. The committee then heard HB 2379, sponsored by Representative Cecily Williams, which would let counties, with voter approval, dedicate an existing local sales tax stream to early childhood education and child care. The bill would route funds into a dedicated early childhood fund overseen by an existing Community Children’s Services Fund board, with the stated goal of supporting child care centers, preschools, Head Start, transportation, and related services for children five and under. The sponsor and supporters from We Power STL, the St. Louis County Children’s Services Fund, Child Care Aware of Missouri, and child care providers argued the bill would address child care deserts, expand capacity, and use an existing governance structure to ensure accountability and prevent diversion of funds. Committee members raised concerns about overlap with DESE, school district programs, licensure, eligibility standards, and whether the proposal would amount to duplicative taxation or funding. Supporters said the bill is intended to supplement, not replace, existing programs and that local voters would decide whether to create the revenue stream. No opposition testimony was offered, and the hearing on HB 2379 was also concluded without a vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> of the future of the federal funding. of the future of the federal funding.
• </c> funds. Those are the biggest programs. funds. Those are the biggest programs.
• Fund.
• the funding available for PIG projects. infrastructure fund.
• </c> um a little bit on PIG funding. um a little bit on PIG funding.

Committee: House Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• So these funds are dedicated funding pools managed separately from the general budget.
• So these funds are dedicated funding pools managed separately from the general budget. revenues can come
• This fund has not historically been a major source of funds, but it has supported individual projects
• And the sales tax funds a huge amount of our discretionary funding.
• You can't appropriate funds using the ballot.

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition No. 25-15, H.5505, “An Act to Protect Water and Nature.” Committee co-chairs outlined the Article 48 initiative process and explained that the hearing was divided into expert, proponent, opponent, and public-comment sections. The first witness, Undersecretary Stephanie Cooper of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, described current state and federal funding sources for land conservation and outdoor recreation, said existing programs are oversubscribed, and noted that the proposal aligns with the Commonwealth’s 30% land conservation goal by 2030 and 40% by 2050. She also flagged possible governance clarifications in the petition, including board structure and administrative authority, while saying the administration has the expertise to manage such a fund. Proponents from Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, Mount Grace Land Trust, the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, the Authentic Caribbean Foundation, and Bemis Associates argued that Massachusetts needs a dedicated, sustained revenue stream for conservation, clean water, climate resilience, and public access to nature. They said current funding is inconsistent and insufficient, cited estimates that the state may need roughly $300 million or more annually to meet conservation targets, and emphasized benefits to public health, mental health, biodiversity, flood protection, and the outdoor recreation economy. Several speakers said the measure would dedicate a portion of existing sales tax revenue tied to sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses, and that it would support both urban and rural communities, including underserved communities. Committee members pressed witnesses on the bill’s fiscal and constitutional implications, including how much sales tax revenue would be redirected, whether the measure is constitutional, how funds would be allocated among communities, and why the proposal includes certain revenue sources but not others such as ticket sales. Proponents said the measure would likely direct up to about $100 million annually when fully phased in, that it was designed as a “subject to appropriation” mechanism, and that legal review had found it constitutional. They also acknowledged that the proposal would reduce general fund flexibility but argued it would create a long-term investment in natural resources. The hearing concluded after public testimony, and the committee announced it would accept written testimony until March 27 at 5 p.m.; no vote was taken on the petition at the hearing.