Transcript Highlights:

• into how much was funded.
• That was an existing fund, so you did not create a new fund, but what you did is convert a fund that
• So, really anything funded out of the Public Education Reform Fund requires a general fund appropriation
• amount of funding, and in regular font is the amount of funding per year.
• through the PERF fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill also clarifies that all OHY programs which offer flexible funds may provide those funds directly
• You can't give away Washington State funds, taxpayers' funds.
• and state funds.
• There's problems going across the nation with fraud and abuse of federal funds and state funds.
• The challenge is we're clear. betterment fund just to buy a new name.

Bills: SB5977 , SB6184 , SB5681 , SB5917 , SB5942 , SB6024 , SB6036 , SB6080 , SB6085

Committee: Senate Human Services

Keywords: child safety, near fatalities, public reporting, child welfare, transparency, homeless youth, youth services, mental health, support programs, state law, employment services, community inclusion, age limitations, disability services, home and community living, abortion medications, reproductive health, mifepristone, misoprostol, abortion access

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund.
• Still some challenges. Downs for construction, also large challenges with supply chain.
• Still some challenges. Downs for construction, also large challenges with supply chain.
• funding source.”
• If we want to continue to fund it, we have a funding source. It’s called GGRF.

Summary: The committee first heard Issue 1 on trailer bill language to redirect funding for emergency demand-response programs. The Department of Finance proposed using about $26.9 million in General Fund originally set aside for the Distributed Energy Backup Assets program to bolster the Demand-Side Grid Support Program for summer 2026, and using about $70 million in CalCHAP interest to support ratepayer-funded demand response in summers 2027 and 2028. The CEC and CPUC said they are working on a transition from DSGS to ELRP or a successor program, while the LAO noted the General Fund money would otherwise revert to savings. Members pressed the administration on whether demand response remains important, whether DSGS has been successful, and whether the state should keep funding it through the CEC rather than shifting to a ratepayer-funded CPUC program. The CEC and CPUC said the programs are not directly comparable, emphasized different cost structures and enrollment metrics, and said a CPUC rulemaking is underway with a proposed decision expected in Q3 2026. No vote was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up Issue 2, a budget proposal tied to SB 254 and the new transmission accelerator. GoBiz and the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank described a five-year, roughly $26 million request to staff and administer the accelerator and manage Proposition 4 and AB 1207 funds for transmission financing. Members asked about state liability, ownership of financed lines, FERC revenue requirements, and whether the program would help underserved regions and offshore wind development. Staff explained that the accelerator would only consider projects already identified through CAISO’s competitive transmission planning process, and that state financing would be a small portion of large projects intended to lower overall costs to ratepayers. The LAO said it had no specific concerns but urged the Legislature to ensure the final language matches its intent. The committee also heard Issue 3 on petroleum market oversight. The CEC and its Division of Petroleum Market Oversight requested additional positions and funding to implement ABX2-1 and continue work on supply stabilization, refinery monitoring, and transportation fuels analysis. Members questioned why the work was funded through the Energy Resources Programs Account, whether existing staff from the paused price-gouging work could be reassigned, and whether the program had produced evidence of price gouging or improved supply conditions. CEC and Finance said the new positions are needed because the workload has expanded, while some existing staff remain on related analysis and reporting duties. The discussion ended without a vote in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's always a challenge. different days. It's always a challenge.
• <00:25:25.679><c> SAUs</c> operational challenges of reducing SAUs operational challenges of reducing
• Financial challenges. the third slide. Financial challenges.
• </c> there's also a lot of those challenges there's also a lot of those challenges that<00:35:26.720>
• </c> for funding. for funding. &gt;&gt; Thank<01:22:38.719><c> you.</c> >> Thank you. >> All right.

Summary: The committee first approved corrected minutes from October 6 after members noted and fixed several transcription and spelling errors, including a clarification that a comment about SAU numbers came from former Senator Jim Rubin. The vote to approve the corrected minutes was moved, seconded, and adopted with one abstention. The main presentation came from Chuck Bates of the New Hampshire Association of School Business Officials (ASBO), who described the organization, its certification program, and the role of school business administrators. He explained that ASBO members handle accounting and financial management, facilities, food service, HR, information systems, transportation, and risk management. He also outlined the certification program, which includes 21 courses, most online, plus four in-person workshops unique to New Hampshire, and noted that many members are not certified because the state licensure requirement was removed. Bates then addressed the committee’s interest in SAU consolidation and county-wide restructuring. He said business administrators often manage multiple budgets, attend school board meetings, and serve as a visible point of contact for the community. He argued that consolidation would create operational and financial challenges, including staff and facility relocation, differing accounting systems, lack of a standardized chart of accounts, and uncertain return on investment. He said the biggest obstacle would be local control, especially in small towns that do not want outside decisions affecting school closures, class sizes, or student transportation. Committee members questioned him about the distinction between administrative and academic control, the size of district offices in larger cities, and what might reduce administrative costs; Bates responded that many administrative costs stem from legislation and that consolidation would be difficult to implement without local support.

Transcript Highlights:

• Funding from last year.
• And that is where those additional funds in the program fund for the Florida College System institutions
• Those funded industry certifications that are received are to be funded based on a share of the funds
• Technical College from the dollars that are provided through the Workforce Fund or the workforce funding
• Unfortunately, with a variety of factors, that funding model is not funded at a level that locally we

Transcript Highlights:

• It is time to fund DHS.
• It would fund Federal Emergency Management Agency. It would fund the U.S.
• </c> It would fund the Secret Service. It would fund the Secret Service.
• </c> in this bill face a similar challenge. in this bill face a similar challenge.
• </c> federal funding. federal funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:13:47.320><c> streams</c> Medicaid programs and funding streams Medicaid programs and funding
• on that fund.
• </c> 0809 of course the extreme challenges 0809 of course the extreme challenges that<01:21:42.280><c
• on state funding.
• As you know, the Medicaid program is funded with a combination of both state and federal funds.

Committee: House Health Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Nearly 390,000 enrollees are benefiting from these funds.
• in their federal funding for Medi-Cal.
• in the budget year, growing to $1.1 billion General Fund ongoing.
• .” “...these services with a significantly reduced federal fund.
• And I think this one is... $3.4 billion a year in federal funding cuts.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on the impacts of H.R. 1 and related federal actions on Covered California, Medi-Cal, and immigrant access to care. The chair framed the discussion around three main issues: expected losses in marketplace coverage as enhanced federal premium subsidies expire, new federal work and renewal requirements that would add administrative burden to Medi-Cal, and the loss of eligibility for certain lawfully present immigrants. Covered California testified that H.R. 1 and new federal rules, combined with the end of enhanced premium tax credits, are driving higher premiums, lower new enrollment, and more cancellations, especially among middle-income, Latino, and Black enrollees. The agency said California’s $190 million state subsidy program is helping lower-income enrollees but cannot replace the lost federal assistance, and it noted that roughly 120,000 lawfully present immigrants in Covered California will lose federal tax credits in 2027. On Medi-Cal, the Department of Health Care Services said H.R. 1 will require work and community engagement verification, six-month renewals for certain adults, and other changes that the department expects will reduce enrollment substantially. DHCS estimated 233,000 members could lose coverage by June 2027 from the work requirement and 289,000 from six-month renewals, with losses rising much higher by 2028; it also said it is using automation, outreach, clinic navigators, coverage ambassadors, community health workers, and street medicine providers to reduce procedural disenrollments. The department described a two-phase outreach plan and said it is working with counties on implementation, while the Department of Finance said the Governor’s budget maintains $190 million for the state subsidy program and does not propose additional changes at this time. The LAO said its independent forecast is somewhat higher than the administration’s, estimating about 2.1 million fewer Medi-Cal enrollees by June 2028, and urged the Legislature to review county administrative workload and readiness. Public testimony and member comments focused on the human and fiscal consequences of coverage losses. A representative from the Sacramento Native American Health Center warned that reduced reimbursement and coverage losses would destabilize community health centers, increase uncompensated care, and worsen outcomes by pushing patients into emergency care. Members raised concerns about paperwork burdens, county capacity, outreach effectiveness, and whether the state should do more to preserve coverage, including possible modeling of additional H-CARF spending and support for middle-income consumers and immigrant enrollees. The hearing did not take any votes or formal actions, but it ended with public comment and continued discussion of implementation and budget options.

Transcript Highlights:

• funds.
• funds.
• funds.
• So uh funds available to begin funding.
• Um our special fund to a general fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund.
• Fund.
• , funded through Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
• funding source.
• billion in federal funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• The other challenge that we've had with the manner in which we receive funding from the US Department
• what we now call ReConnect, there were state funds appropriated with that, some federal funds, and there
• How much of the ongoing maintenance is paid for by federal funds versus state funds?
• And then obviously, September 30, 2026, to actually get services for those funds and spend those funds
• The federal funds we're discussing here, along with the state funds and the operations and maintenance

Transcript Highlights:

• We set up the health care access fund, and one of the roles of the health care access fund is to help
• care access fund is.
• Funding for rare disease by Rep.
• So let's talk about EMS funding.
• There is additional spending from the general fund and the dedicated environmental funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the California Senior Director for Environmental Defense Fund.
• options projects, and funding programs to help customers decarbonize.
• I think it has been a little bit of a challenge.
• And unfortunately, it's facing a lot of challenges right now. To decarbonization.
• Gas Reduction Fund to reduce unnecessary free giveaways to industry.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The committee heard an overview and discussion of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840. Chairs and members emphasized the program’s role in meeting climate targets while balancing affordability, and CARB described the proposal as intended to preserve market certainty, strengthen cost containment, address utility affordability, and support the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goal. CARB also noted the public comment period, the planned board hearing, and the goal of an effective date of September 1, 2026. Members questioned CARB on several implementation issues, including whether the rulemaking would be completed on time, the treatment of carbon capture and sequestration, the timing of the transfer of allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and the impact on ratepayers. CARB said it was on track to meet the May deadline, that CCUS/CDR could be further refined in the proposal and would also be addressed in a separate SB 905 rulemaking later in the year, and that it was seeking to protect ratepayers while inviting more utility data during the comment period. The committee also discussed refining-sector leakage risk, gasoline imports, and how imported fuel is accounted for under cap-and-invest versus the low-carbon fuel standard. A second panel of outside experts and stakeholders then testified. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and IEMAC representatives explained the major statutory changes, including putting offsets under the cap, shifting allowances from natural gas to electric utilities over time, and changing how allowance value is divided among utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. They stressed that CARB has significant discretion in setting the allowance “pie,” and that more free allocations to utilities or industry reduce GGRF revenues. EDF’s representative argued the proposal should be adopted this spring, said the utility transition should happen faster, and urged a tighter near-term emissions cap. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, opposed the proposed utility allocation changes, saying they would reduce expected allowances, undermine long-term planning, and could force higher rates or reduced decarbonization investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:50.840><c> and</c> in your toolbox to help you fund and in your toolbox to help you fund and
• </c> president Trump um all of the funding president Trump um all of the funding and<00:12:50.760><c>
• CPRA had the emergency funds for us.
• </c> the um uh to the general fund the um uh to the general fund um<00:43:04.760><c> uh</c><00:43:04.880
• </c><00:53:32.040><c> uh</c> to provide funds uh to provide funds uh to<00:53:34.559><c> improve</c><

Committee: Senate Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• administrative costs for the fund.
• administrative costs for the fund.
• , $352 billion state funds, federal funds, so a total of $539 billion in total dollars for the budget
• And we used that funding, the savings in those facilities, to fund community care.
• You want to tell me why you cut IDD funding and not high-speed rail funding, just for an example.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review heard the 2026-27 budget package, including AB 111 and AB 112 plus 16 trailer bills and two policy bills. Chair Laird described the budget as balanced over two fiscal years, with about $351.7 billion in total spending, $251.5 billion General Fund, and record reserves, while emphasizing investments in child care, homelessness, housing, Medi-Cal, education, courts, and other core programs. The Department of Finance presented each bill, outlining major items such as Medi-Cal adjustments tied to federal H.R. 1, child care and early learning funding, education and higher education investments, human services, developmental services, health, skilled nursing, resources, energy, transportation, housing, labor, state government, courts, taxation, and two policy bills on education governance and ballot measure placement. The LAO said it had no additional comments but was available for questions. The committee later achieved quorum and moved to member questions and comments, with no votes taken in the portion provided. Members largely focused on the budget’s fiscal structure and policy implications. Several senators praised staff and noted the compressed timeline, while Vice Chair Niello criticized the process as overly complex and burdensome. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas supported the budget but raised concerns about Medi-Cal changes for people with unsatisfactory immigration status, asking about access to care, the number affected, and county eligibility support; Finance said about two million people would transition to fee-for-service and that $39 million was included for care coordination, along with additional county eligibility funding. Senator Durazo said the agreement delayed, but did not resolve, cuts to immigrant health coverage, dental, and clinic payments, and argued that the budget did not create a true restoration mechanism. Senator Richardson highlighted hospital funding, public hospital definitions, DMV data protections, and court construction and maintenance needs, while Senator Grove questioned the sustainability of spending, the Medi-Cal savings assumptions, distressed hospital funding, Planned Parenthood transparency, developmental services changes, high-speed rail costs, and the property tax postponement program. Other members emphasized different priorities. Senator Blake Spear praised climate and parks investments, support for HAP homelessness funding with accountability, transit stabilization, and Care Court referral funding, while expressing concern about the lack of wildlife coexistence funding and long-term transit operating support. Senator Weber Pearson raised a technical concern in the health trailer bill regarding menopause language, arguing that the bill should refer to perimenopausal symptoms and should not narrow provider participation through contracting language. Throughout the hearing, Finance repeatedly explained that many of the budget’s savings came from reduced caseloads or delayed implementation of prior proposals, while some new spending was added to mitigate impacts and support administration of the changes. No final committee action or vote was shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• The supplemental benefit liability was largely not pre-funded, with no funding at all at most institutions
• The original intent of these rates was to partially pre-fund SRP benefits and that some ongoing funding
• Now, that is a funding policy choice, and you as the PFC could revisit those funding policy choices in
• To illustrate that point, in terms of the funded ratio change, most plans funded...
• Let's move on to the last topic: funded ratio. Last topic: funded ratio.

Committee: Joint Pension Funding Council

Transcript Highlights:

• For brief background, the Aviation Assurance Funding Program is a temporary program created in 2023 by
• Substitute House Bill 1498, which requires DNR to use specifically appropriated fire suppression funding
• This appeared to be a kind of a cost-saving bill, and there was some challenges with it.
• Of course, about 27% of that goes back to DNR to fund their operations.
• Of course, about 27% of that goes back to DNR to fund their operations.

Summary: The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held public hearings on three bills. HB 2104 would make permanent the Aviation Assurance Funding Program, which lets DNR provide aerial wildfire response resources to local fire departments during initial attack. The prime sponsor, Rep. Tom Dent, said the program helps small rural districts avoid costly state mobilization and keeps fires small; DNR and local fire officials testified in strong support, citing rapid response times, major property protection, and even a rescue of a trapped civilian. No opposition testimony was heard, and the sign-in record showed 215 pro and one con. HB 2348, a DNR request bill, would streamline timber and land sale procedures by allowing more online notice, changing where sales may be held, permitting re-offering of no-bid sales, and clarifying appraisal and fair-market-value standards for certain land transfers. DNR said the bill would improve efficiency and reduce administrative burden, while the American Forest Resource Council and Washington Forest Protection Association supported it as a modernization measure that preserves fiduciary protections for trust lands. Committee members asked about the scope of the trust-land language and potential savings; the sign-in record showed 43 pro and one con. HB 2454 would raise the surface mine reclamation threshold from three acres to seven acres of disturbed area, reducing the number of small gravel and aggregate operations subject to DNR permitting. Rep. Andrew Engel argued the change would help small rural producers compete against larger corporations and lower burdens on local material suppliers. DNR opposed the bill, saying acreage alone does not determine environmental risk and that the permit process provides important review, technical assistance, and reclamation planning; the agency said it was open to discussing alternative approaches. A remote industry witness supported the bill, saying it would help small sources remain viable while county regulation would still apply. The sign-in record showed 143 pro and three con. After the hearings, the committee adjourned without taking votes on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is it being challenged? And if it is being challenged, is it surviving the challenge?
• We could tunnel those funds or change those funds to a different...
• to challenge any denials in that particular space.
• And the funding is at stake because NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, funding
• Funding is at risk under the Trump administration.

Bills: AB52 , AB76 , AB163 , AB388 , AB483

Committee: Assembly Commerce and Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2017, the parish pursued a grant to try to identify some grant funds, federal grant funds, to assist
• And so to me— ...the process, and we were fortunate enough to get some funding.
• Really good dialogue with them and the challenges that they're going through. ...since I've been here
• Really good dialogue with them and the challenges that they're going through.
• And certainly the service challenges with the equipment that they have is certainly evident.

Summary: The Louisiana Transportation Authority met on March 26 with a quorum present and approved the September 10, 2025 minutes. The main item was the Cameron Ferry privatization proposal from Labmar Ferry Services. Staff explained the ferry’s current operational problems, including reliability issues with the aging Cameron No. 2 vessel, limited backup capacity, and staffing challenges. They also reviewed the competitive solicitation process that followed Labmar’s unsolicited proposal, noting that Labmar was the only proposer and that local entities, including the Cameron Parish Police Jury and Cameron Port Harbor and Terminal District, had no objection to the concept. Staff and counsel outlined the statutory public-purpose factors the board had to consider and described the scope of a potential agreement, which would cover vessel operations, maintenance, facilities, communications, dry docking, and emergency response. Board members praised DOTD staff and the Cameron ferry workers for their long service and emphasized the need for more reliable service and better contingency planning. Senator Abraham asked procedural questions about the unsolicited proposal and the solicitation process. The board first voted that the privatization proposal would serve a public purpose, then voted to approve the proposal contingent on execution of a comprehensive agreement; both motions passed without objection. The meeting also covered next steps. DOTD said negotiations would continue through spring and early summer, with a possible transition to Labmar in late summer 2026 if an agreement and funding are secured. Staff reported that two new hybrid ferries, the Holly Beach and the Cameron, are expected in May and August 2026, and that temporary docking and site improvements are underway. A feasibility study for terminal expansion estimated costs between $30 million and $50 million, with permitting and design likely taking at least a year and a half to two years. Members discussed the need for a multi-year funding plan, and the meeting ended with a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• In terms of this funding split, we have $49.5 billion in General Fund, $138.5 billion in federal funds
• General Fund in the current year, and $222.4 billion total funds and $48.8 billion General Fund in the
• This presents some challenges.
• This presents some challenges.
• Which is in the fund right now for the, yeah, the ending fund balance for the fund?

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the Department of Health Care Services’ proposed budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds budget and projected Medi-Cal enrollment decline as redeterminations continue. Members focused heavily on the fiscal and programmatic effects of prior budget solutions and federal changes, especially the elimination of General Fund-supported Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, the hospice utilization-management change, and the impact of reduced caseloads alongside rising health care costs. DHCS said it is still completing required access and rate-reduction analyses for the dental cuts and has been engaging stakeholders, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect on utilization or provider participation. The committee also reviewed the November 2025 Medi-Cal local assistance estimate, which shows higher General Fund spending despite lower enrollment, driven by managed care rate growth, Medicare cost growth, state-only claiming, and federal policy changes. The hearing then turned to provider taxes and federal H.R. 1 constraints, with extensive discussion of the MCO tax, the hospital quality assurance fee, and other health care-related taxes. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 phases down allowable tax levels and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, making the current MCO tax structure and the proposed higher hospital fee levels difficult or impossible to renew as originally designed. Staff and the LAO described the tradeoff between preserving Medi-Cal funding and avoiding higher costs on private providers and consumers. Members asked about options for preserving revenue, including possible amendments to Prop. 35 or returning to voters, and were told the department is still evaluating approaches while federal guidance remains in flux. The committee also reviewed hospital payment increases already implemented through state-directed payments, with DHCS noting that H.R. 1 will force those payments down to Medicare levels over time. Several budget change proposals were discussed and left open, including requests tied to the managed care final rule, managed care operations, hospital value strategy, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability requirements. The committee also heard about a one-year trailer bill extension for skilled nursing facility financing, including continuation of the SNF workforce standards program, the SNF quality assurance fee, and annual rate growth, while the department develops a longer-term financing redesign for 2027-28. Members expressed skepticism about repeated rate reform efforts and questioned whether a one-year extension of the eliminated workforce quality incentive program should be restored during the transition. Finally, Covered California presented its budget and enrollment update, reporting that the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit is expected to reduce affordability significantly, with average premiums roughly doubling for many enrollees and as many as 400,000 Californians potentially losing marketplace coverage over time. The exchange said California’s $190 million subsidy program is helping lower-income enrollees, but not enough to offset the federal loss, and it is also implementing a new gender-affirming care benefit and awaiting federal action on benchmark plan changes.