Transcript Highlights:

• It's from an allocation from the Irrigation Works Construction Fund, and then it's also been funded with
• Madam Chair and Representative Zamora, I believe you're making reference to two allocations that are
• And right now it's being used for both, but the year-to-year decision on how to allocate that is made
• And right now it's being used for both, but the year-to-year decision on how to allocate that is made
• The Irrigation Trust Fund, it's recurring allocations from the permanent fund.

Bills: SB193

Keywords: SB193, acequia, community ditch, irrigation works construction fund, water infrastructure, ditch infrastructure, irrigation, New Mexico water law, agricultural water, farmers, Rio Grande, acequia association, forest land protection revolving fund, state fund transfer, irrigation projects, 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so slots then are allocated back to districts or providers, based on their request and based on us
• looking at a map and trying to allocate where seats are needed the most.
• Those have to be spent specifically on the items for which they're allocated.
• Restricted funds have to be spent specifically on the items for which they're allocated.
• month when we talk about our funding and the resource allocation.

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the previous minutes and then focused on an update from the Department of Education on early childhood programs, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ongoing work to review ABC slots, which have been flat for years at about 23,800 slots and roughly $114 million. They said about 1,000 slots statewide are currently unfilled despite a waiting list of more than 2,000 families, and the department is shifting toward paying based on enrollment rather than guaranteed slots. Members asked about school choice, income eligibility, year-round access, curriculum flexibility, transportation, and whether funding should be increased or rebalanced; the department said it is collecting data, may survey providers more formally, and is considering whether to modernize income thresholds, daily rates, and other program rules. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical information on income limits and other program details. The second major portion of the meeting was a legal presentation on the framework for Arkansas school adequacy by BLR education attorney Taylor Lloyd. She reviewed the constitutional basis for a “general, suitable, and efficient” public school system, the Dupree and Lake View cases, and the principle that adequacy and equity are different but related: adequacy asks what resources are needed, while equity asks whether those resources are distributed fairly. She explained that the General Assembly must define adequacy, study it, and react to evidence over time, and that the current adequacy definition includes curriculum and career/technical frameworks, the 38 mandatory Carnegie units, state testing standards, and sufficient funding. She also described the matrix as a funding tool, not a spending mandate, and noted that categorical funds are separate from the matrix. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum then gave the historical framework, tracing legislative responses from Dupree through Lake View and into the present. She highlighted major changes such as the creation of equalization funding, fiscal distress and academic distress laws, the adequacy study process, the Educational Adequacy Fund, facilities and transportation changes, declining enrollment and student growth funding, and later adjustments to teacher salaries, isolated funding, and categorical programs. She explained that the adequacy study has evolved through committee hearings, surveys, site visits, and outside consultants, and that recent changes include updates to accountability references and the addition or removal of certain funding categories. Members asked follow-up questions about how the matrix is used, whether homeschool or private-school funding raises comparable issues, whether stakeholders include private and homeschool participants, whether school board members should be surveyed, and whether the state should revisit average daily membership versus attendance-based funding. No votes were taken on the adequacy presentations, but the committee did agree to continue the early childhood discussion in a future subcommittee meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• A certain amount of slots out of a federal allocation, whether they filled them or not.
• And so slots then are allocated back to districts or providers based on their request and based on us
• looking at a map and trying to allocate where seats are needed the most.
• Those have to be spent specifically on the items for which they're allocated.
• Those have to be spent specifically on the items for which they're allocated.

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the prior minutes and then shifted to an update from Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith on early childhood education, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. They said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ABC as a large state program with about 23,800 funded slots and roughly $114 million in annual appropriations. Department officials said they are reviewing slot allocations because about 1,000 seats are funded but unfilled, while more than 2,000 families are on waiting lists, and they plan to reduce or reallocate slots from providers that have not filled them over several years. They also said they are examining whether income thresholds, curriculum expectations, daily rates, and summer programming should be updated, and members raised concerns about access, local control, transportation, and whether the program should better align with K-12 choice and school readiness goals. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical data and other information for future discussion. The committee then received a legal presentation from BLR attorney Taylor Lloyd on the constitutional and statutory framework for education adequacy in Arkansas. She reviewed the Dupree and Lake View cases, explaining that the state must maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools, and that adequacy and equity are distinct but related concepts. She emphasized that the General Assembly is responsible for defining adequacy, studying whether the system meets that standard, and reacting to the evidence, while the courts ultimately decide constitutional compliance. Lloyd also explained the current adequacy definition, the role of the matrix as a funding tool rather than a spending mandate, and the distinction between unrestricted foundation funding and restricted categorical funding. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum followed with a historical overview of how Arkansas responded to the court cases and developed the current adequacy process. She traced major legislative actions from the 1980s through the Lake View litigation, including the creation of funding formulas, categorical aid, isolated funding, declining enrollment funding, and the 2003-2004 adequacy study that led to the Continuing Adequacy Evaluation Act and the matrix used to set foundation funding. She also described later changes to the adequacy statute, the financial reporting requirements for districts, and the ongoing use of surveys, stakeholder testimony, and consultant studies in the biennial adequacy process. Members asked questions about whether private or homeschool programs could use public funds for expenses like utilities, whether stakeholders should include those groups, the difference between average daily membership and attendance, and whether school board members are surveyed; staff said those issues would need further research or were outside the scope of the presenters’ role.

Transcript Highlights:

• The $25 million allocated has been essential in this preparation.
• The $25 million allocated has been essential in this preparation.
• The 25 million allocated has been essential in this preparation.
• Okay, so first, the jump: this allocation is going to be covering more implementation.
• And just because our federal funds, they have to be allocable, reasonable, right?

Summary: The committee heard a series of budget proposals focused on education finance, with repeated questions about whether the state’s investments are coordinated, targeted to the highest-need students, and likely to produce measurable results. On the first item, the administration proposed $1 million for a study of California’s curriculum framework, standards, and instructional materials process, plus $250,000 for supplemental ELA/ELD guidance. CDE and Finance said the study would examine how other states organize standards, frameworks, and adoptions, while the chair and members questioned why California has gone so long without updating some standards, what the study would actually accomplish, and whether the proposal was too vague to justify the cost. The issue was held open. The committee then took up a proposed $25 million statewide literacy network within the system of support. CCEE and CDE said the network would coordinate multiple existing literacy leads, create a clearinghouse of evidence-based resources, and improve coherence across the state’s many literacy initiatives. Members pressed on how a one-time, five-year allocation could support a long-term system, how the work would reach distressed and rural districts, and whether the proposal would translate into classroom change rather than just another layer of coordination. The issue was also held open. Next, the committee reviewed a $500 million proposal to expand literacy coaches and reading specialists and to create a math coaches program. CDE described the existing literacy coach cohorts as producing positive reports from participating LEAs, while the LAO recommended modifications, especially for the math coach portion, including limiting eligibility to elementary schools, setting minimum grant amounts, directing funds to eligible school sites, and making eligibility automatic rather than application-based. Members focused on whether coaches were actually being placed at the schools with the greatest need and whether the state has a coherent long-term strategy for literacy and math investments. The committee also heard a $40 million proposal for training and implementation of K-2 reading difficulty screeners, which the LAO said was reasonable but could be reduced because $25 million had already been provided for training; CDE said the new funds were needed for full implementation, procurement, and sustainability. Finally, the committee heard a $10 million proposal for a developmentally appropriate TK multilingual learner screener, with CDE explaining why the preschool language-identification process is different from K-12 EL assessment and the chair asking staff to explore whether a single, more consistent approach could be developed. The meeting concluded with a presentation on universal school meals and kitchen infrastructure, including a $31.5 million backfill, an $84.1 million increase for projected meal growth, a COLA adjustment, and $150 million for kitchen upgrades and training to support freshly prepared meals.

Transcript Highlights:

• The SCFF is composed of three main components: a base allocation, accounting for...
• And we have funding that was allocated from Prop 98 and the proposed $7 million funding.
• Yeah, or not allocated. Maybe increased as a result?
• Yeah, or not allocated, but approved maybe as a result of this.
• We suggest a universal basic allocation with FTEES instead. Thank you. I'm Matt Westine.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing focused on California Community College budget proposals. Chair Alvarez opened by emphasizing the system’s role in access, transfer, workforce training, and serving more than 2 million students, while also noting persistent challenges in enrollment, persistence, transfer, and graduation. Public commenters and system representatives broadly supported COLA, enrollment growth funding, deferred maintenance, student support block grants, and additional flexibility for districts facing uncertainty. The first major panel covered the student-centered funding formula, COLA, and enrollment growth. The Department of Finance said the Governor proposes a 2.43% COLA ($230.4 million) and 0.5% enrollment growth funding ($30.4 million). The LAO said the COLA was reasonable and recommended funding at least the proposed growth amount, citing uneven enrollment recovery and regional differences. The Chancellor’s Office supported both proposals and asked for additional changes, including using the greater of current-year or three-year average for apportionments and lifting the 10% local enrollment cap, arguing these would better fund growing districts. Members questioned how the formula works, whether SCFF is improving outcomes, and how much additional funding would be needed under different growth scenarios. The committee then reviewed categorical program COLAs, Rising Scholars, career education proposals, IT proposals, and student housing. The Governor proposed a 2.43% COLA for selected categorical programs ($31.9 million). For Rising Scholars, the Governor proposed $30 million ongoing and removal of the cap on participating colleges; the LAO urged waiting for outcome data before doubling funding, while the Chancellor’s Office said the program is serving more students and supports equity for justice-impacted students. On career education, the Governor proposed $50 million for credit for prior learning and $50 million for a career passport; the LAO supported more reporting on credit for prior learning but recommended rejecting the career passport as too undefined, while the Chancellor’s Office supported both. On technology, the Governor proposed $162.5 million for a common cloud data platform and $168 million for a common ERP system; the LAO said both were premature or lacked sufficient planning and recommended rejection, while the Chancellor’s Office argued they would improve real-time data, security, and systemwide efficiency. The committee also heard an update on student housing: the administration said the 2024 shift to a lease-revenue bond model remains in progress for 13 approved projects, with 11 still active, and members asked about withdrawn projects and possible use of any returned funds. No votes were taken, and several items were held open for further discussion and May Revision updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• As a reminder, this increases the real estate transfer tax allocated to affordable housing, takes it
• <00:16:51.480> Pearl The fiscal note we just got because we met it on a four to add that fee
• a four<00:17:30.000> to<00:17:30.200> add<00:17:30.480> that<00:17:30.679> fee
• There used to be two fee levels; now there's one. square fet and a lot of discussion with square fet
• schedule so that is to adjust the fee schedule so that there<00:23:56.279> the<00:23:56.880><

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• allowed to be on the health care and the life insurance of that as an employee, as long as they pay the fees
• clarification on what is a shall in the S.J.R. versus the may in terms of money that will or has to be allocated
• mathematics involved, have trillions of dollars available to us to be able to offset all taxation, all fees

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So that was going to be my first question, where these dollars already allocated.
• We just got to, like we're doing the fee, we've got to be very, very careful that, you know, that it's
• election. ...provide for the method of qualifying for candidates for delegate and associated qualifying fees

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 105, which reinstates a sunset-expired TOPS Tech benefit for eligible veterans. Senator Kathy said the bill would use existing TOPS dollars, not new funding, and would help veterans stay in Louisiana and enter the workforce. After brief questions about eligibility and funding, Representative Marcelle moved the bill favorably, and it was reported favorably without objection. House Resolution 3, by Representative Newell, asked the Louisiana Housing Corporation to study whether vacant state-owned property could be repurposed for housing and rental assistance for cost-burdened state employees. Members discussed the high fiscal note and whether the work could be absorbed in existing budgets. Fiscal staff said LHC had requested a full-time position and four part-time positions for the study, but the committee also talked about narrowing the study’s scope. Representative Marcelle moved the resolution favorably, and it was reported favorably without objection. The committee then debated House Bill 189, which would extend supplemental pay to fire protection officers at the Lakefront Management Authority’s airport fire department. Representative Newell and airport representatives argued the firefighters perform specialized, hazardous ARFF duties and should receive the same supplemental pay as other qualifying public firefighters. Some members questioned whether the airport and its employees qualify under existing law and whether the supplement should be expanded further. After discussion, Representative Marcelle moved the bill favorably, but the motion failed on a roll call vote of 8 yeas to 10 nays. Later, Senate Bill 461, concerning Office of Group Benefits coverage for certain small employee groups, was reported favorably without objection. House Bill 623, creating a three-tier permitting system for vapor products, was amended to clarify direct-to-consumer shipment restrictions and then reported favorably as amended. House Bill 1222, creating a grocery initiative grants and financial support program through LED to address food deserts, drew extended debate over whether it would amount to government-run grocery stores; supporters framed it as an incentive and grant program for private grocers, while critics raised concerns about government involvement. After amendment, it was reported favorably as amended by a vote of 16 yeas to 2 nays. Finally, House Resolution 80, directing a comprehensive fiscal audit related to Board of Regents and university system spending on certain executive budget metrics, was amended into a substitute version. Members debated whether the resolution would require universities to do additional work and whether it belonged in Appropriations at all, especially since the fiscal note had been removed. The discussion also raised concerns about the listed schools and the resolution’s purpose in light of a federal civil rights investigation. The transcript ends while the committee is still discussing the resolution and related procedural motions.

Transcript Highlights:

• payment of a statewide hospitality fee payment of a statewide hospitality fee that<00:09:42.399>
• Thank you. center facility fee thing. Um and so center facility fee thing.
• I the be charging all these fees.
• um requirements for stating the fees. um requirements for stating the fees.
• And this has to do with the fees. two. And this has to do with the fees.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• $483 million appropriation recommendation for VPK operations, which increases the base student allocation
• that did. ...a total of $1.56 billion for teacher pay, an allocation that did not exist prior to this
• includes increases in key areas of our FEFP budget: an increase of $100 million in base student allocation
• ; $190 million, which is an increase of $10 million for the mental health allocation; $12.5 million is
• When we're talking about mental health allocations and the increase, what does that include?

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education received a presentation from the Governor’s Office of Policy and Budget and the Department of Education on the Governor’s fiscal year 2026-27 education budget. Shelby Salmons outlined the overall budget framework, and Commissioner Stasi Kamoutsis highlighted major education investments, including $486 million for VPK, $30.6 billion for K-12 education, a $761.1 million increase in FEFP funding, the highest per-student funding level to date, and $201 million more for teacher pay flexibility. The presentation also emphasized school safety, mental health, civics education, and the Guardian Program, along with continued funding for TEACH, HIPPY, Help Me Grow, and civics debate and literacy initiatives. Members asked about how the mental health allocation would be used, counselor staffing ratios, school closures and whether the department intervenes, oversight of school choice and voucher-funded schools, and the Guardian Program’s pay structure and effectiveness. Senators also raised concerns about the FISH school capacity report, data collection, teacher pay, professional development, AI and tutoring technology, and whether the budget adequately supports mental health services and school safety. The Commissioner said many funding decisions are left to districts, that the department stands ready to assist, and that the Guardian Program has been successful and expanded over time. During public testimony, Pinellas County School Board member Laura Hine said her district spends far more on safety and mental health than it receives in state categorical funding, and urged the committee to consider full-day VPK funding, arguing it has improved third-grade reading outcomes in Pinellas. Senators followed up on district flexibility and local spending choices. The committee took no substantive vote on the budget presentation and adjourned after thanking the department for its recommendations and partnership.

Transcript Highlights:

• We expended about 93% of our overall allocation.
• <00:10:33.040> and 2023 State fiscal year allocation and 2023 State fiscal year allocation
• <00:10:52.079> in annually um our allocation in annually um our allocation in 2024<00:10:53.880
• I thought we allocated more than that. We did.
• <00:21:52.320> like bills that would allocate like bills that would allocate like between<

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Health and Human Services held an informational briefing on Kupuna Care funding, distribution, utilization, and the status of program rules. The Office of Aging explained that state Kupuna Care funds are distributed using the same federally approved interstate funding formula used for Older Americans Act funds, with eight weighted factors tailored to Hawaii’s conditions: older adults, greatest economic need, low-income minority status, disability, language barriers, geographic isolation, inverse population density, and older adults living alone in poverty. The department said the formula is based on census and American Community Survey data, with current county shares listed as Kauai 7.45%, Honolulu 69.61%, Maui 11.7%, and Hawaii County 17.88%. Officials said the formula is being reviewed with current data and will need federal approval and then public hearing before final adoption. Members questioned how the program works in practice, noting that the statute and eligibility language can sound like direct individual benefits even though services are delivered through area agencies on aging, ADRCs, and contracted providers such as meal and adult day care programs. The Office of Aging said ADRCs determine eligibility and then refer clients to authorized providers, who must meet service standards in their contracts. The chair pressed repeatedly for long-delayed rules, saying the Legislature had expected them years earlier and that clear rules are needed to ensure funds are spent properly and to avoid conflicts of interest. The department acknowledged the delay, said draft rules were written in 2023 after earlier commitments to finish sooner, and said it paused while federal Older Americans Act rules were being updated; it now expects to send the rules to the Deputy Attorney General, then out for public hearing, with a goal of completion in 2025. The department also reported utilization data for the last two fiscal years. In 2023, it expended about 93% of its allocation and served 5,473 older adults at an average annual cost of $1,358; in 2024, it expended about 97% and served 5,520 older adults, with the average cost down by about $200, which officials said may indicate fewer services per person. Eligibility was described as age 60 or older, U.S. citizen or qualified alien, with cognitive impairment or disability and functional deficits, and the statewide profile showed many participants were homebound, living alone, or below poverty. The most-used services were transportation, case management, and home-delivered meals. The chair also asked about the former Kupuna caregiver program; officials said the programs are now combined under Kupuna Care, with most funding going to adult day care to provide respite for working caregivers. County representatives then described local conditions, especially on Hawaii Island. Hawaii County officials said the county covers about 5,000 square miles, has about 208,000 residents, and roughly 24% are age 65 or older. They identified three main challenges: staffing shortages and retention problems among providers, shortages within the county department itself, and the loss of adult day care capacity, with only one center remaining on the island and none on the west side. They said these constraints limit service delivery even as demand grows. At the same time, they highlighted successes such as serving people in the community before they need higher levels of care, providing caregiver counseling and training through adult day care, serving 467 individuals locally, and ensuring the Resource Center answers calls from caregivers seeking help.

Transcript Highlights:

• Administrative fees are one, two, possibly maybe 5%, but 10% is a really high administrative fee.
• administrative fee? administrative fee?
• May I really high administrative fee.
• fees? fees?
• somehow the fees aren't really taxes.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• annual allocation right now stands at $2 million a year.
• annual allocation right now stands at $2 million a year.
• annual allocation right now stands at $2 million a year.
• annual allocation right now stands at $2 million a year.
• annual allocation right now stands at $2 million a year.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2022, people were assessed $13.8 million in supervision fees, but only $6.4 million were collected
• They have never told us to burden their clients with excessive fees they cannot pay. Thank you.
• In 2022, $13.8 million in supervision fees were assessed, but only $6.4 million were collected.
• They have never told us to burden their clients with excessive fees they cannot pay. Thank you.
• <00:34:42.520> are don't think that supervision fees are don't think that supervision fees

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We allocate funds on a fiscal year basis.
• California allocated $40 million in 2020, New York City allocated $20 million in 2020.
• New York City allocated about $3 per resident.
• New York City allocated about $3 per resident.
• Okay, so we allocated the money, but it didn't actually— we, the legislature, allocated the funds.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on the Census held an early planning hearing on how Massachusetts can maximize participation in the 2030 census, with Chair Will Brownsberger and Vice Chair Rebecca Rausch emphasizing the need to start well in advance. The first panel, made up of leaders from the Massachusetts Voter Table, MassVOTE, MIRA, and MESA, stressed that grassroots community organizations are trusted messengers and should be funded early to do multilingual outreach, training, and direct assistance in hard-to-count communities. They described lessons from 2020, including the shift to internet response, reduced federal census infrastructure, the importance of coordinated statewide networks, and the need to begin messaging several years before Census Day because building trust and staffing outreach takes time. Panelists repeatedly warned that immigrant communities are facing heightened fear because of federal immigration enforcement and the possibility of a citizenship question or other federal changes, making census participation more difficult. They said 2020 funding arrived too late to fully staff and train outreach teams before the pandemic, and argued that future resources should be deployed earlier and more flexibly. In response to committee questions, they estimated Massachusetts should invest roughly $8 million to $10 million or more in state census outreach, with one proposed model of about $3 million to $5 million at the start, additional funding in the middle years, and a larger final push closer to 2030. They also suggested that funding should support communications infrastructure, translation, social media and ethnic media outreach, and possibly a permanent complete count structure or trust fund to preserve institutional knowledge. A second panel from Common Cause Massachusetts and the ACLU of Massachusetts echoed the call for stronger, earlier investment and stronger privacy protections. They urged the legislature to expand existing census line items, consider a trust fund or other dedicated funding stream, and coordinate census outreach with other state programs that already work through trusted community messengers. The ACLU testimony focused on racial inequities in census counts and warned that federal efforts to exclude non-citizens or add a citizenship question would deepen distrust and undercount immigrant communities. Committee members asked about the 2020 overcount/undercount results, funding levels, timing of grant distribution, and whether census outreach should be routed through the Secretary of the Commonwealth or other state mechanisms; no votes were taken, and the hearing moved on to a later panel on immigrant-community outreach.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have lease monies also we allocate each year for leasing these structures.
• We have lease monies also we allocate each year for leasing these structures.
• We have lease monies also we allocate each year for leasing these structures.
• We have lease monies also we allocate each year for leasing these structures.
• We have lease monies also we allocate each year for leasing these structures.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first discussed HB 771, the open enrollment bill, which had returned from the Senate with language clarifying that districts should list both tuition expenses and offsetting revenue estimates from sending districts. The chair and Representative McGuire supported concurring with the Senate changes, while Representative Luno raised broader concerns about the bill’s structure and equity, arguing that tuition based on 80% of the sending district’s average cost could be unfair and could create problems for receiving districts with different cost structures. After a show of hands, the committee voted to concur and send that recommendation to the House floor, with Luno indicating he would speak against it there. The committee then took up SB 9 in executive session. An amendment, 1920H, was offered to clarify that the tuition calculation should use the sending district’s average cost and to support access to CTE programs, including allowing students to take academic courses at the receiving school and, in some cases, attend the nearest CTE center. Supporters said the bill would help more students participate in career and technical education and noted bipartisan sponsorship in the Senate. Opponents argued the amendment would increase district costs, strain property taxpayers, and could reduce CTE participation or create logistical problems. The committee adopted the amendment 10-8, then voted 10-8 to recommend OTPA as amended; Representative Lad was assigned the majority report and Representative Luno the minority ITL report. After closing the SB 9 executive session, the chair reminded members that committee reports were due immediately and announced retained-bill subcommittees. One subcommittee will address adequacy and school funding issues arising from HB 651, HB 772, HB 491, and HB 434, chaired by Representative Spillsbury. Another will address school building aid issues from HB 295 and HB 366, including whether to keep the current formula or revise it, and how to handle renovations, new construction, and lease arrangements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those funds were allocated in February of this year.
• Next is the FY27 proposed budget grant allocations.
• Next is the FY27 proposed budget grant allocations.
• Is there a motion to approve the FY27 allocation budget?
• A motion to approve the FY27 allocation budget as presented.

Keywords: Virginia Commission for the Arts Board Meeting, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't think people are willing to give their dollars back once allocated.
• So they have their allocations reduced. What happens to that pot of money?
• So the original 2022-23 budget act allocated, appropriated at $7.9 billion.
• In those two years, there was $5.7 billion allocated; just over $443 million was unspent.
• In those two years, there was $5.7 billion allocated, just over $443 million was unspent.

Summary: The committee heard presentations on the Governor’s education budget proposals for the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), Learning Recovery Block Grant, and Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), followed by testimony from State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond. On LCFF, Finance outlined the proposed 2.43% COLA, repayment of prior deferrals, and a trailer bill penalty for LEAs that fail to adopt Local Control Accountability Plans on time. The LAO said its COLA estimate was slightly lower and raised concerns that the Governor’s proposed TK staffing ratio increase may be more costly than estimated. Members also discussed whether the current COLA formula should better reflect California-specific or district staffing costs, and whether TK should be more clearly separated from the K-3 grade span adjustment to avoid larger K-3 class sizes. The chair asked staff to work with the LAO on both the TK/K-3 issue and alternative COLA calculations. For the Learning Recovery Block Grant, Finance proposed restoring the first of three delayed payments, $378.6 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund, while the LAO recommended adopting the proposal but extending the expenditure deadline by at least a year. The LAO reported that districts had spent $1.6 billion of the $6.8 billion received through 2023-24 and said most districts were only now shifting from federal COVID relief to block grant spending. Members questioned whether the large state and federal investments were improving outcomes, citing declining reading and math trends, while Finance and the State Board president pointed to some signs of improvement, especially in math, attendance, and gains for some student groups. Darling-Hammond emphasized that student needs have grown, that recovery spending has gone to devices, ventilation, staffing, tutoring, summer school, and community schools, and that targeted interventions appear to be helping some districts recover faster than others. On ELOP, Finance proposed adding $435 million to expand universal access by lowering the Tier 1 threshold from 75% to 55% unduplicated pupils, bringing ongoing funding to $4.4 billion. The LAO said the estimate was reasonable but recommended delaying implementation for a year, aligning ELOP with ASES to reduce overlap, moving toward funding based on participation rather than enrollment, and considering a fixed Tier 2 rate. Members and witnesses discussed staffing challenges, the use of funds for students with disabilities, and uncertainty in Tier 2 funding caused by unspent dollars and opt-outs. Darling-Hammond supported ELOP as part of California’s broader after-school and summer learning strategy, said most districts are now offering full-day TK and expanded learning, and urged the state to reduce fragmentation across categorical programs and build more unified systems for funding, reporting, and support.

Transcript Highlights:

• For each reading specialist, where did we hope to be with the funding that was allocated?
• The $25 million allocated has been approved by the board.
• One, why maybe finance the jump in the allocation requirement from $40 million to $65 million?
• This allocation is going to cover more implementation.
• And just because our federal funds, they have to be allocable and reasonable, right?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Once again, this bill doesn't spend any new money; it just gives an allocation so the victims of this
• Once again, this bill doesn't spend any new money; it just gives an allocation so the victims of this
• The underlying bill just changes the $4.9 million that was allocated to Scott County for the 169/282
• :32:25.039> um<00:32:25.480> it<00:32:25.600> was<00:32:25.880> allocated
• um it was allocated to Scott County<00:32:27.279> it<00:32:27.399> needs<00:32:27.919>

Keywords: 1183, house