Transcript Highlights:

• VMT mitigation bank program, affordable housing program, and the Wildfire County Coordinator program
• We are disappointed that this budget cuts public safety programs that work and fails to meet new voter
• access to this crucial program.
• housing program in the budget.
• HOPE Accounts Program.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the final three-party budget agreement and related trailer bills, with the Department of Finance outlining the major budget bill and omnibus measures. Finance described a package built around balancing the state budget amid economic uncertainty, preserving core health and safety-net programs, and making significant ongoing reductions in some state programs. The budget bill included major items such as shifting $1 billion from the General Fund to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for Cal Fire, funding universal transitional kindergarten, deferring some UC and CSU funding, supporting foster care and homelessness programs, providing Proposition 36 implementation funding, and achieving Medi-Cal savings through changes to benefits and eligibility. The committee also heard that votes on the budget bills were expected later in the week and the following Monday. Finance then walked through the trailer bills, including health, human services, early learning, education, resources, energy, transportation, labor, housing, tax, public safety, courts, general government, cannabis, and energy-related measures. Notable provisions included a Medi-Cal enrollment freeze for certain adults, new premiums and benefit changes for some immigrants, child care COLA changes, education funding for literacy, teacher support, universal meals, and community college student support, as well as resource and climate measures affecting Cal Fire staffing and energy permitting. The housing trailer bill drew the most discussion, with provisions on CEQA streamlining, a vehicle miles traveled mitigation banking program, a renters’ credit trigger, and a six-year moratorium on new residential building standards. Members also discussed a film tax credit expansion, cannabis enforcement funding, a tribal police pilot program, and changes to tax policy, including military retirement income exclusions and wildfire settlement payment exclusions. Committee members largely praised the staff and the budget process, but several raised concerns and asked detailed questions, especially about the housing trailer bill’s new wage standards, tribal consultation provisions, and possible effects on prevailing wage protections. Finance explained that the housing language was intended to set wage floors for market-rate projects receiving CEQA streamlining, with different county-based tiers and a notwithstanding clause preserving existing prevailing wage laws. Members also questioned the size and timing of funding for the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, Clean Cars for All, Proposition 36, and the film tax credit expansion. Other members highlighted support for public safety, veterans’ tax relief, child care providers, housing production, and higher education, while some expressed concern that the budget’s policy changes were being negotiated too quickly or without enough stakeholder input.

Transcript Highlights:

• school meal program.
• The Marion Institute's education program effectively delivers farm-to-school programming to over 12,000
• is getting slashed, including the USDA Farm to School Grant Program and the Local Food for Schools Program
• is getting slashed, including the USDA Farm to School Grant Program and the Local Food for Schools Program
• The school-based mental health program, and specifically H-545, The school-based mental health program

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a public hearing on a large slate of bills, with the chairs emphasizing time limits, written testimony, and grouping similar measures together. Early testimony focused on opioid use disorder education in schools (S.382), with Senator Keenan arguing that students should be taught about the risks of substance use disorder and naloxone use as part of health curricula. Representative DeCost also briefly introduced H.551, a narrow bill concerning parent rights for children in third grade and younger. Several bills were then closed without testimony, including measures on type 1 diabetes informational materials and other diabetes-related proposals. A major portion of the hearing centered on school health and emergency response bills. Supporters of H.652/S.342 on diabetes management in schools described inconsistent district practices and urged clearer standards so students can receive care in classrooms rather than being sent out of instruction. Bills on epinephrine access and seizure disorders drew extensive testimony: advocates for stock epinephrine in schools argued that unassigned epinephrine can save lives and should be funded in a cost-neutral way, while a pediatrician opposed one version as an unfunded mandate. For seizure-safe schools (S.422/H.635), students, parents, educators, and advocates described missed or delayed responses to seizures, stigma, and the need for staff training, seizure action plans, and emergency medication protocols. A separate bill, H.645, allowing anti-seizure medication on school buses, was supported by a parent and student who said current law forces costly and restrictive transportation arrangements. The committee also heard testimony on youth skin health bills (S.334/H.600/H.619), which would let students carry and apply sunscreen at school and camp without a physician’s note. Supporters from melanoma prevention, dermatology, and industry groups said the bills would remove unnecessary barriers and promote sun-safe habits, while one witness cautioned about drafting details and unintended consequences. The hearing then moved to CPR/AED education for graduation (S.456), where Senator Tarr, a student advocate, and the Red Cross all supported requiring hands-on CPR certification for high school students. Finally, the committee took testimony on healthy school lunches (H.539/S.401): supporters from the Healthy School Lunch Coalition and school food directors backed stronger nutrition standards and a standing advisory council, while Consumer Brands Association witnesses opposed the bill as too vague and potentially disruptive. A nutrition scientist also warned about unintended restrictions on medically necessary or innovative foods. The chairs closed the hearing on the healthy lunch bills and then opened testimony on universal school meals for virtual schools (H.700), with Superintendent Patrick Latuka supporting access for students in Commonwealth virtual schools who currently receive no meal support.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, it might be under public school broadly defined, yes. Charters are public schools?
• They have a Civics for Life program.
• Release time programs harm academic outcomes, violate students' rights, and would expose Arizona's public
• These programs detract from the efforts of public school educators and administrators to prioritize student
• This is public education.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee heard and voted on several education-related bills. Senate Bill 1422, which continues the Credit Enhancement Eligibility Board for 10 years to support the state’s credit enhancement program for charter school debt, received a due pass recommendation on an 8-1 vote. Senate Bill 1166, allowing county school superintendents to offer high school equivalency preparation through accommodation schools to 11th- and 12th-grade students age 16 and older, also passed 8-1 after testimony from county superintendents in support and one member opposing expansion to 11th grade. Senate Bill 1684, creating a private cause of action against public schools for failing to address known bullying that results in serious physical injury, drew the most opposition. The sponsor’s comments described it as a response to school inaction in bullying cases, including a referenced Chandler Unified student suicide. Opponents from the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association, Arizona Charter Schools Association, and Arizona Education Association argued the bill was constitutionally problematic, overly broad, lacked a definition of bullying, could expose schools to costly litigation, and could create liability for conduct outside school control. The committee held the bill without a vote. The committee also considered Senate Bill 1424, requiring annual age-appropriate firearm safety instruction in K-12 schools beginning in 2027-2028. Supporters said the bill teaches children to avoid touching firearms and alert an adult, while opponents argued it shifts responsibility from adults to children, should be handled by parents, and creates an unfunded mandate. The bill passed 6-5. Senate Bill 1475, barring students convicted of or admitting to specified serious offenses from participating in school-sponsored interscholastic activities, passed 6-5 after debate over juvenile rehabilitation, public safety, and the role of extracurriculars in helping students succeed. Senate Bill 1572, requiring Celebrate Freedom Week civics instruction, passed 6-5 amid debate over curriculum, age appropriateness, and whether it duplicated existing civics requirements. Senate Bill 1741, requiring districts and charters to allow release-time religious instruction and award credit under certain conditions, also passed 6-5 despite opposition from secular advocates who argued it undermines local control and promotes religion in public schools.

Transcript Highlights:

• for this program um this is a program for this program um this is a program that<01:01:49.160>
• The next program we'll talk about is the Public Safety Officer Survivor Grant Program.
• This program provides educational benefits to dependent children or the surviving spouse of a public
• The Public Safety Officer Survivor Grant Program provides educational benefits to dependent children
• program, and they have to be at an eligible Minnesota institution, which would include our public institutions

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:06:34.640> And program or potential program. And program or potential program.
• He added that public transit is different from other means-tested programs because every time someone
• He said public transit is different than other means-tested programs in that every time you get somebody
• Um and I think that public program.
• the public to take public transportation the public to take public transportation I<01:46:16.080

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Transportation Committee met on February 5 and heard testimony on a long agenda of transportation-related bills. Early measures included HB 2392, which would create an employer tax credit for transportation demand management benefits; HB 2462, which would bar auto manufacturers and dealers from charging post-sale fees for already-installed hardware; and HB 2423, which would require diesel sold for on-road use to contain at least 5% biodiesel. HB 2392 drew support from the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization and one individual, with the Department of Taxation and the Tax Foundation offering comments. HB 2462 drew support from DCCA and one individual, while the Alliance for Automotive Innovation opposed it. HB 2423 drew comments from the Hawaii State Energy Office and Hawaii Farm Bureau, support from Pacific Biodiesel and the Hawaii Transportation Association, and a question from the chair about whether biodiesel is exported; the witness said production stays local. The committee also heard HB 1771 on voluntary carbon offsets for air travel, HB 2081 on requiring firefighters exempt from CDL rules to follow equivalent alcohol and substance abuse policies, HB 2334 on allowing the Department of Transportation to assume NEPA responsibilities for certain projects, and HB 2336 on DOT agreements with the Department of Defense for work at military installations using federal funds. HB 1771 drew comments from Life of the Land warning that carbon offsets are often unreliable and could create liability, while Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines offered comments. HB 2081 received support from DOT, county human resources offices, fire departments, and county officials, with the Hawaii Firefighters Association in opposition. HB 2334 was supported by DOT, and the director said other states using NEPA assignment can complete projects in about half the time. HB 2336 was supported by DOT, HIEMA, DBEDT’s military relations office, and the Hawaii Military Affairs Council; the committee discussed the administrative fee as a way to recover costs under an intergovernmental agreement. The most extensive testimony centered on HB 1666, which would limit new motor vehicle markups above 5% of MSRP and require recordkeeping. Multiple dealer groups and the Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association opposed it, arguing it would threaten dealership operations, especially in Hawaii’s high-cost market and for vehicles without an MSRP. The committee also heard HB 2375 on uniform towing and parking enforcement standards on state and leased lands, including notice, disability protections, payment safeguards, and public reporting; DLNR, DAGS, and several advocacy groups testified, with strong public support and concerns about towing practices and ADA compliance. HB 2415, which would appropriate funds for crosswalks near school properties, drew support from DOT, DOE, and the Hawaii Bicycling League, and the committee discussed how counties would request projects and how funding would be allocated. Finally, HB 2451, which would move Hawaii toward fare-free public transit beginning in 2027 and create a dedicated funding source through a petroleum tax increase, received broad support from DOT, the Energy Office, public health and advocacy groups, and many individuals; DOE testified that it currently uses about $2.1 million for student bus passes and that the program is tied to savings from inactive school bus routes.

Transcript Highlights:

• With respect to issue one, public safety, we found that SVPs participating in the CONREP program were
• I think no evidence exists to call it an effective program in terms of public safety.
• Liberty are committed to administering the CONREP program in a manner that protects public safety while
• Why should taxpayers trust Liberty Health Care to administer this program in a way that protects public
• not a criminal justice program, a health care program.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee held an oversight hearing on the state auditor’s October 2024 report on California’s Forensic Conditional Release Program (CONREP) for sexually violent predators. Members and witnesses discussed public safety, the long delays in finding community housing, the role of local housing committees, and the Department of State Hospitals’ oversight of Liberty Healthcare, which operates much of the program. Several legislators from rural and high-desert districts said their communities have been disproportionately affected by placements and questioned why many placements end up in remote areas. State Auditor Grant Parks said the audit found that CONREP participants were convicted of new offenses less often than sexually violent predators who were unconditionally released, but that 18 of 56 participants had been revoked and returned to state hospitals for noncompliance. He said it took an average of 17 months to place current participants in the community, with 20 additional people awaiting placement for an average of 20 months, and that the program incurred significant pre-placement costs. Parks also said local officials were often unclear about their role, DSH had not given clear guidance at the time of the audit, and California lacks a transitional housing option used in some other states. He reported that DSH had implemented four of the five audit recommendations, while declining the recommendation to explore state-owned transitional housing. DSH Director Stephanie Clendendon and Liberty representative Ken Carabello defended the program as a court-ordered, highly supervised treatment model intended to reduce reoffending and support reintegration. They said DSH is actively involved in placement review, that Liberty searches countywide under statutory restrictions, and that community feedback and court approval are part of the process. DSH said it has now implemented guidance for housing committee designees, formal program reviews, an outcome tracker, and an analysis of whether to separate some Liberty services into different contracts. DSH continued to oppose transitional housing, arguing it would not solve the core siting and statutory problems and would add cost. Several members remained critical, arguing the program is broken, costly, and unfairly concentrated in certain communities, and some called for major statutory changes or suspension of the program.

Transcript Highlights:

• to other public comment as well.
• Program.
• Since it is a program that addresses the total cost of attendance, the program would need to increase
• More accelerated programs, three-year degree programs as opposed to four.
• So when we look at graduate programs, professional programs, are there any thoughts to possibly think

Summary: The subcommittee on Education Finance heard an overview of the governor’s budget proposals and higher education financial aid trends, with a major focus on the Middle Class Scholarship (MCS), Cal Grant spending, and the effects of recent federal student aid changes. The Department of Finance said the budget would fully fund Cal Grant at projected levels and reduce MCS coverage from 35% to 17.5% of unmet need in 2026-27, while the Legislative Analyst’s Office supported considering the reduction as a cost-saving measure given out-year deficits. UC and CSU representatives opposed the cut, saying MCS is important to affordability and debt-free degree goals; they estimated average awards would fall substantially and that campuses do not have funds to backfill the loss. The Student Aid Commission said the proposal would reduce aid but simplify administration, and members questioned how lower awards would affect students, borrowing, and work-study options. No vote was taken, and the issue was held open for possible future action. The committee then discussed federal changes to student loans and Pell Grant policy under H.R. 1, including caps on Parent PLUS loans, elimination of Grad PLUS loans, and new proration rules for federal direct loans based on enrollment intensity. The LAO said these changes would likely push some borrowers into the private market, especially graduate and professional students and some parents of students at private institutions. CSU said the changes would affect thousands of graduate and part-time students and could reduce access by about $97 million in loan availability for part-time borrowers, while UC said the new definitions of professional degrees were too restrictive and would reduce access for nursing, teaching, law, dentistry, and other programs. Community colleges said they use relatively little federal loan aid but are monitoring Workforce Pell. Members raised concerns about workforce impacts, social mobility, and whether the state should consider alternative loan programs or other ways to reduce student costs. This issue was also held open. In the segment financial aid update, the LAO reported Cal Grant spending is projected to rise to about $3.2 billion in 2026-27, driven by more recipients and higher awards tied to UC and CSU tuition increases, while CSAC said FAFSA and CADAA applications are up significantly year over year. CSU, community colleges, and UC described their aid packaging and rising aid totals, with CSU reporting over $5.5 billion in aid to 381,000 students, community colleges reporting over $4.3 billion to more than 920,000 students, and UC reporting $3.17 billion in grant aid to undergraduates. Members asked about Cal Grant reform, application trends, and long-term outcomes; UC and community colleges pointed to alumni and wage dashboards, and the LAO noted the state’s Cradle to Career data effort. The committee then took public comment, including testimony on library funding and other education-related priorities, and concluded by holding the issues open without formal action.

Transcript Highlights:

• as public benefit programs subject to immigration-status verification, including programs that have
• , initiate new service programs, and expand their capacity to self-determine the programs that they need
• programs for one reason or another.
• give public comment.
• They lost the Head Start project contract, the Senior Nutrition Program, Meals on Wheels program, the

Summary: The Senate and Assembly Human Services Committees held a special oversight hearing on California’s 2026-27 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) state plan, a federal anti-poverty funding stream. Committee members opened by citing statewide poverty and homelessness data and said the hearing was meant to review how CSBG dollars are used, how local agencies respond to community needs, and how the state is preparing for possible federal funding cuts. Jason Wimbley of the Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) explained that California’s CSBG network works through 60 organizations in 58 counties, serving about 1.5 million low-income Californians in 2023, and that the state received $68.4 million in federal CSBG funds in fiscal year 2025. He described the program as flexible funding used for housing, employment, education, food, health, transportation, and emergency response, and noted that the federal administration had proposed eliminating CSBG, though the Senate Appropriations Committee had voted to fully fund it for the coming year. Representatives from the California Community Action Partnership Association and several CSBG-funded agencies described how the program supports local anti-poverty work and leverages other funding. CalCAPA emphasized local flexibility, workforce development, partnerships, and data systems such as ROMA, while also warning that agencies are preparing for possible reductions by tightening budgets, planning staffing contingencies, and seeking private foundation support. Agency witnesses from Contra Costa County, Northern California Indian Development Council, Proteus, and Sacred Heart Community Service described services including housing assistance, food distribution, utility help, employment training, youth programs, and culturally specific services for Native communities and migrant farmworkers. They repeatedly said CSBG is essential because it funds staffing and infrastructure that allow them to braid other grants and serve people who do not qualify for standard safety-net programs. Members also asked about the impact of federal staffing changes and the Los Angeles fires. Wimbley said federal layoffs had affected some CSD programs but not CSBG administration, and that the department coordinated disaster response with state agencies and used CSBG-funded supply distribution, food, water, clothing, and documentation support during the fires. Witnesses said they were preparing for possible future cuts by diversifying funding, reducing expenses, and considering service changes, while county officials warned that state and federal reductions could not be backfilled locally. During public comment, one speaker urged stronger oversight of community action agencies and raised concerns about transparency and compliance with state law. The chair then thanked the witnesses, emphasized the importance of CSBG for low-income seniors, youth, and people with disabilities, and adjourned the hearing without any votes or formal action taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• So now we're at this unusual part of the program where normally we would have public comment at the very
• AB617 Community Air Protection Program, also the farmer program.
• You appropriate a program. They have to go through a public process that could take a year or two.
• So this program, unlike the other, is not a program that is a competitive grant program.
• program.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Programs on the ground.
• I really appreciate the State Library's efforts to support programs like the Civil Liberties Public Education
• As you may recall, Lunch at the Library is the program that serves meals to youth and teens at the public
• The California Library Services Act is the loaning and lending program for public libraries. for the
• public libraries.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have a program.
• To provide public goods, our universities need public investment.
• That program was to EPA, and EPA's program was cut.
• I'm an assistant professor in the School of Public Health and Community Health Education program in the
• And AANAPISI programs, the federal funding, and the programs exist to close these gaps.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee on Economic Development held a hearing on the DRIVE Act, a proposal to invest $400 million in Massachusetts research and innovation without new taxes. Governor Healey and administration officials said the bill would direct $200 million to public higher education research and regional partnerships and $200 million to a research funding pool for hospitals, universities, and other institutions, with the goal of retaining talent, leveraging private and philanthropic dollars, and offsetting major federal R&D cuts. They argued that research is a core economic engine for the state, supporting jobs across labs, construction, services, and surrounding businesses, and said the bill would help protect the Commonwealth’s tax base and competitiveness during a period of federal uncertainty and cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, and other programs. Committee members raised concerns about whether Fair Share surtax dollars should instead be used for K-12 and other community needs, whether the proposal is enough given the scale of lost federal grants, and how the money would be allocated. The governor responded that the funds are one-time surplus dollars, that most surtax revenue already supports education, and that the bill is meant as a bridge to stabilize public higher education and research. She also said the legislation includes a review board and could support a revolving or matched-fund approach in some cases. Several members pressed for more detail on selection criteria, future funding, and whether private companies and large endowments should contribute more. University of Massachusetts leaders and researchers testified that federal grant cancellations and delays are already causing layoffs, furloughs, rescinded admissions, and lost research capacity. UMass officials said the bill would help preserve faculty, postdocs, graduate students, and research programs in medicine, climate science, marine science, Braille instruction, and AI decision-making. They emphasized that the funding should be merit-based and that the state needs to act quickly to prevent talent from leaving Massachusetts. Business, labor, and industry groups, including MassBio, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, AIM, the AFL-CIO, and Building Trades, supported the bill, saying it would protect jobs, sustain the innovation ecosystem, and reinforce Massachusetts’ national leadership in research and life sciences. No vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• programming.
• the line programs.
• Or you can choose to do the one-year program and go through any of the HED programs.
• So the Ed Fellows program is not a tuition reimbursement program.
• This makes it sound like a college program or residency program.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A lot of these programs, a lot of the 32 programs, are established programs.
• Some programs, such as the Integrated Regional Water Management Program that Mr.
• grant program.
• There's another program in Proposition 4, the Dam Removal Program.
• Drinking Water for Schools Program, the Septic to Sewer Program, and of course the MLRP Program that

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those programs are provided in group settings, so they're not individual education programs.
• the farmers' market program.
• So the Our Kids B program, 897, that’s for operational expenses administering the program?”
• That is for our Our Kids B program. It is for our CHIP program, Children’s Health Insurance.
• Do schools, do public schools provide assistance for signing up for the Our Kids B program?”

Summary: The committee heard a series of Arkansas Department of Human Services budget presentations and questions, beginning with the Secretary’s Office and then the Division of Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health Services. Staff described the divisions’ appropriations, funding sources, and major programs, including senior centers, Meals on Wheels, mental health grants, substance abuse treatment, community alcohol safety, the Medicaid tobacco settlement program, and crisis stabilization units. Members raised concerns about flat or limited funding for senior services, the use and tracing of federal block grants, the lack of a funding source for the veterans’ mental health grant, and the mechanics of the community alcohol safety and treatment programs. The committee also discussed patient benefits funds at state facilities, transportation for senior center clients, and whether some special-language appropriations or fund balances should be revisited. Executive recommendations were adopted for the divisions considered. The committee then reviewed the Division of Children and Family Services and the Division of County Operations. Questions focused on foster care growth, adoption subsidies, professional fees tied to staff training and onboarding, vacancies, the Children’s Trust Fund, and TANF subgrants. Members asked about the reduction or elimination of TANF funding to child advocacy centers and other subgrantees, and DHS explained that prior reserves had been spent down and that the department was now trying to live within the annual TANF block grant and rebuild reserves. County operations questions also covered summer EBT, SNAP employment and training, the farmers’ market program, and the expected impact of a federal SNAP administrative match change, which DHS estimated would increase state costs by about $24 million annually, with roughly $18 million affecting the current year because the change begins October 1. Executive recommendations were again adopted. Finally, the committee heard from the Division of Developmental Disability Services and the Division of Medical Services. DDS testimony covered vacancies, staffing shortages, human development center construction and repairs, the reopening of the Boonville work training program, and funding for infant infirmary and child/family life programs. Medical Services testimony covered the Medicaid program, the current FMAP rate, the Our Kids B CHIP program, Medicaid payments to schools, nursing home distress funding, and large appropriation lines used to provide flexibility for claims and potential facility closures. Members asked for more detail on school Medicaid payments, reserve balances, and why some appropriations were much larger than actual spending. In each division, the committee moved and adopted Executive REC after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Public assistance programs often create barriers to work.
• And then public assistance programs—I was very involved in 1996 in the state of Utah with implementing
• If Governor Leavitt is going to do workforce reform, the public assistance program should be part of
• And the other big goal we had around TANF and our public assistance programs is increasing family income
• And the other big goal we had around TANF and our public assistance programs is increasing family income

Summary: The committee met to hear an update from consultants Mason Bishop and Cameron Christie on Arkansas’s “one door” or “no wrong door” workforce and social services modernization effort. The discussion focused on moving the state toward a work-first system that better connects job seekers, employers, education, and public assistance programs, with goals of increasing upward mobility, improving labor force attachment, reducing inefficiencies, and adapting to changes such as AI and other economic disruptions. The consultants argued that Arkansas’s current system is fragmented across multiple offices, portals, agencies, and funding streams, and that people often have to navigate separate doors for workforce services, TANF, SNAP, Medicaid, and related supports. Bishop repeatedly pointed to Utah as the model, describing how that state integrated workforce and human services into a single department, used cost allocation to blend funding behind the scenes, and saw improved customer service and outcomes after reform. He said TANF should be treated as a workforce program, not just a benefits program, and suggested that Arkansas could use TANF and other tools to cross-train DHS staff, co-locate services, and create a more unified service delivery model. Members asked about federal flexibility, waivers, and whether the state could use one large waiver or a broader restructuring to simplify the system. Bishop explained that a federal pilot authority proposal failed in Congress, so the current approach relies on waivers, cost allocation plans, and possible state-level changes. The committee also discussed the relationship between DHS and workforce offices, the role of local workforce boards, how disability and vocational rehabilitation cases would be handled, and how the governor’s Restore Hope/Hope Hub and faith- and community-based initiatives might fit into the broader plan. Bishop said Arkansas already has rehabilitation services within the workforce department and emphasized that case managers should focus on people rather than programs. No votes were taken. The chair said the committee would revisit case management at its August meeting and adjourned the meeting after thanking the consultants.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a mentoring program.
• the adult education program.
• The specific categorical programs include the adult education program, Extended Opportunity Programs
• . workforce Pell Grant Program.
• , and the program expands upon the federal Pell Grant program, but has some key differences.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard May Revision proposals covering higher education, including the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the University of California, California Community Colleges, the California Student Aid Commission, UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and trailer bill reporting changes. For the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the administration proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan taken to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to adjust for a pending legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about an interest-free loan under Proposition 26. Senators asked about whether the $10 million would cover the litigation and about the estimated $245,000 in interest savings. For UC, the May Revision maintained the Governor’s ongoing support and included budget language requiring campuses to grow by 2,968 California undergraduates in 2026-27. UC also sought $1.5 million in one-time General Fund support for the First Star foster youth program. UC described strong outcomes for the UCLA program, while the LAO recommended rejecting the new spending because UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and because the need for new state funding was not clear. Senators debated whether the proposal duplicated existing services and discussed the program’s reported college-going and completion rates. The committee also heard a request for $1 million ongoing General Fund for UC College of the Law, San Francisco, to maintain campus safety services; the college described its shared-campus model and public-interest mission, while the LAO noted the college was also raising tuition and that the proposal would maintain, rather than expand, current security spending. The committee then reviewed community college proposals. Finance outlined a larger May Revision package centered on a 4.31% SCFF COLA, enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, a one-time Adult Learner Demonstration Project allocation, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time items. The Chancellor’s Office supported the package but asked for more enrollment growth funding, a higher growth rate, and additional policy changes. The LAO recommended at least funding the statutory 2.87% COLA, then considering whether to redirect remaining funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time priorities; it recommended rejecting the Adult Learner Demonstration Project. Senators questioned the use of the discretionary COLA to cover paid pregnancy disability leave, the impact on hold harmless and basic aid districts, and whether the state should instead create a separate categorical. The Chancellor’s Office and Finance said the COLA approach was intended to provide flexibility, though Finance said it was open to further discussion about districts that would not receive direct funding. For student aid, Finance described May Revision changes to Cal Grant and the Middle Class Scholarship, including a one-time reduction tied to lower estimated costs and a later true-up, as well as proposals for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. CSAC supported the financial aid investments but urged more time and clearer implementation planning for Workforce Pell, noting the need for state approval processes, data linkages, and likely ongoing administrative workload. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding and cautioned that the Workforce Pell trailer bill and one-time funding were premature given the new federal rules and unclear workload. Senators also raised concerns about the Middle Class Scholarship reduction, the need to support students facing higher living costs, and the decline in CADA/DREAM Act applications, with CSAC saying the drop did not reflect reduced need and that outreach should be strengthened. The final item was a set of technical trailer bill changes to shift some UC, CSU, and community college reporting from annual to biennial and consolidate reports; Finance said there were no programmatic changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• and also bring evidence to the programs and also bring evidence to the Public<00:42:15.160> Utilities
• programs are responsible stewards<01:12:37.480> of<01:12:37.679> public<01:12:38.239><
• This program is also a much smaller program for investment.
• This program is also a much smaller program for investment.
• you have a public hearing?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Under California's Active Transportation Program, ATP, bikeways funded through the program are already
• It doesn't create a new program and improves an existing program.
• They are about public safety, public health, neighborhood pride, human dignity, and quality of life.
• This bill would upgrade the Clean Miles Standard and Incentive Program to ensure that the program is
• most polluting programs within SB 1.

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee heard several bills focused on active transportation, transit, road safety, and local enforcement. SB 569 would restrict removal or downgrading of bikeways built with state General Fund dollars for at least 20 years, require public hearings before major changes, and was supported by bicycle advocates and some local and environmental groups. The City of Encinitas opposed the bill, arguing it could limit needed safety fixes and should apply only to future projects; committee members discussed whether the bill still allowed safety-based modifications. The bill passed on a due pass vote to Appropriations. SB 741 would streamline the Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program by reducing administrative burden and giving transit agencies more flexibility to use funds for service improvements, fare programs, and other transit needs while maintaining oversight and disadvantaged community requirements. Transit agencies and advocacy groups supported the measure, saying it would help agencies respond to post-pandemic ridership and financial challenges. The committee approved the bill on a due pass as amended vote to Appropriations. The committee also heard SB 1167, which would tighten consumer protections by clarifying that high-powered e-motos and similar motor vehicles are not e-bikes, requiring clearer disclosures and labels, and improving crash reporting. Supporters said the bill would reduce confusion and improve safety for riders, pedestrians, and parents; the Motorcycle Industry Council opposed unless amended, arguing the term “e-bike” is used broadly and the bill could affect existing businesses. The bill passed to Appropriations. Later, SB 953, dealing with vehicular manslaughter cases dismissed through misdemeanor diversion, would add DMV points so fatal conduct remains reflected on driving records; the bill was supported by the victim’s family and safety advocates and passed to Appropriations. The committee then heard SB 1218, which would let local agencies boot vehicles tied to repeated unpaid illegal dumping citations instead of using DMV enforcement. Oakland officials and community groups supported the bill as a needed deterrent, while the ACLU opposed it as punitive debt collection without a sufficient nexus to the vehicle. The bill passed to Appropriations. Finally, SB 739 would revise the Clean Miles Standard for rideshare companies by allowing CARB and CPUC to adjust electric vehicle mileage targets in light of current market conditions; Uber and Lyft supported the flexibility, while clean air advocates began raising concerns about weakening climate goals as the transcript cut off.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next is our acquisition and betterment of public lands program.
• Capital funding for public lands improves and conserves Minnesota's natural heritage, enriches public
• flood Hazard mitigation grant program flood Hazard mitigation grant program this<00:09:27.680>
• success of our asset management program success of our asset management program and<00:10:44.240
• acquisition EMB betterment of public acquisition EMB betterment of public lands<00:18:38.840>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• For members of the public who wish to provide public comment, please limit your testimony to the items
• A lot of these programs, a lot of the 32 programs, are established programs.
• So for that grant program, is that program, is that program, Is the grant program construct already in
• There is another program in Prop. 4, the Dam Removal Program.
• Drinking Water for Schools program, the septic-to-sewer program, of course the MLRP program that folks

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on water and coastal resilience heard an overview of the governor’s Proposition 4 spending plan, with presentations from the Department of Finance, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and later coastal agencies. Members discussed the water chapter’s major allocations for drinking water and wastewater, recycled water, tribal water infrastructure, groundwater recharge and SGMA implementation, dam safety, flood protection, integrated regional water management, Salton Sea projects, and water data/stream gauges. The LAO noted that many programs are established and have clear funding processes, but some newer or less-defined programs may warrant more detailed future budget requests and reporting. No votes were taken on the agenda items. Members raised concerns about groundwater subsidence, water deliveries from the Delta, the pace of water storage investments, instream flows, and whether bond dollars were being used to backfill General Fund reductions. Administration witnesses said groundwater recharge spending is being paced because prior years already funded substantial SGMA work, that Delta operations are governed by water quality, salinity, and species requirements, and that Proposition 1 storage projects have moved slowly because they are locally led and require permitting and financing. The Water Board and DWR said they use public needs assessments, annual plans, and existing grant processes to prioritize projects, and Finance said some General Fund programs were shifted to Proposition 4 to help balance the budget. Members also asked for clearer public tracking of bond spending and more concise future reporting. In the coastal resilience portion, the Ocean Protection Council and Coastal Conservancy described Proposition 4 funding for sea level rise adaptation, coastal flood management, habitat restoration, public access, and San Francisco Bay projects, with a multi-year rollout based on project readiness and recent large state investments. The Conservancy said it would use its existing rolling grant process, while OPC said its sea level rise grants would build on existing programs and new technical assistance. The Department of Fish and Wildlife explained its proposed use of bond funds for climate-ready fisheries, hatchery modernization, salmon monitoring, whale- and turtle-safe fishing gear, and a specific hatchery operations request tied to the Friant settlement. The LAO said the coastal chapter’s proposed first-year spending is relatively modest but generally reasonable given staffing and project readiness, while members emphasized oversight, transparency, and coordination across agencies and jurisdictions.