Transcript Highlights:

• And finally, it enables the community college chancellor's office to allocate unallocated resources appropriated
• This is the resources trailer bill.
• It allocates $40 million for fairground upgrades.
• Also, grateful for the Proposition 4 allocations.
• Also, grateful for the Proposition 4 allocations.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the September budget package, which included SB 105 and a series of trailer bills covering health, human services, education, resources, child care, transportation, labor, public safety, housing, revenue, background checks, collective bargaining, and a special election. The Department of Finance described the package as largely technical and clarifying, but also responsive to state and federal changes, especially H.R. 1. Key items included roughly $3.3 billion in Proposition 4 climate and environmental spending, $540 million in discretionary greenhouse gas reduction funds, and major responses to H.R. 1 such as CalFresh error-rate mitigation, food bank support, and Medicaid-related changes. Other notable provisions included vaccine policy flexibility, an Abortion Access Fund, a gender-affirming care program, community college basic-needs and aid changes, CEQA and coastal permit exemptions tied to the 2028 Olympics, invasive mussel prevention funding, a civic media program, labor and pension-related provisions, and special election administration changes. Members raised questions and concerns about several parts of the package. There was support for climate, water, transit, offshore wind, food security, and health investments, but also significant criticism of the lack of cleanup language for SB 131 and its advanced manufacturing exemptions, with multiple members saying promised fixes had not materialized and expressing concerns about tribal consultation, labor standards, and environmental protections. Members also questioned the scale and timing of some Proposition 4 allocations, including fairground upgrades, regional conveyance, and a UC Davis alternative protein research center. The Department of Finance said some programs would roll out over time and that certain funding levels reflected current implementation capacity. The hearing also featured discussion of Bay Area transit financing, with Finance saying SB 105 directs the department and CalSTA to examine loan or other financing options rather than immediately providing loans. Members and public commenters also discussed the state’s response to H.R. 1, with advocates supporting food bank, health care, and immunization provisions while warning of ongoing harm to immigrants, foster youth, and other vulnerable groups. Public testimony broadly supported the health, food, water, offshore wind, and golden mussel provisions, while many speakers echoed legislative concerns about SB 131 and urged cleanup action in the next session. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only, though the chair noted votes on the bills were expected later that night or the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, it enables the Community College Chancellor's Office to allocate unallocated resources appropriated
• This is the resources trailer bill.
• This is the Air Resources Board CEQA Exemption Trailer Bill.
• So, why does this proposal only allocate $2 million this year?
• We're also grateful for the Proposition 4 allocations.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislative package allocates the resources that I mentioned from the higher revenues and the use
• We needed to be very careful and prudent with the resources that were allocated mainly through Prop 98
• And then last but not... ...it prohibition to use those resources.
• We are very appreciative of the allocation.
• Without this new allocation, California will lose Without this new allocation, California will lose one

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the 2026 Budget Act, which leaders said was the negotiated compromise with the Senate and was expected to move to the floor that evening. Opening remarks emphasized that the plan balances the budget over two years, reduces the structural deficit, and builds reserves, while also protecting core services in the face of federal cuts. Jason Sisney outlined the legislative budget framework and the likely floor bills, including AB 109, SB 110, SB 122, and SB 125. Department of Finance representative Eric Khali said the administration appreciated the two-year balanced approach and supported the modification in SB 122, while noting the package uses additional revenues and new spending to soften or reject some proposed cuts. Most of the discussion focused on major spending areas. Members and subcommittee chairs highlighted protections and additions for health care and human services, including rejecting the proposed Medi-Cal asset limit change, delaying premium increases, restoring clinic and dental funding, supporting distressed hospitals and county indigent care, and expanding county eligibility staffing to handle H.R. 1-related workload. Education members described record or expanded support for TK-12 schools, child care, special education, community colleges, teacher recruitment, and higher education, including a change to extend Cal Grant eligibility to age 30 for some community college students. Housing and homelessness funding was increased for HAP, multifamily housing, and the low-income housing tax credit, while public safety members pointed to investments in victims’ services, restorative justice, and prison closure savings. Several members also raised concerns or priorities tied to the budget deal. Some praised the package as a moral document that protects vulnerable Californians, immigrant communities, LGBTQ residents, seniors, and people with disabilities. Others noted unresolved issues, including the MCO tax’s impact on districts, the need for more support for local journalism, arts, biotech R&D incentives, transit and GGRF-related concerns, and the need for continued work on Prop. 98 and long-term fiscal resilience. The vice chair cautioned that despite the current progress, the state remains vulnerable to revenue volatility and warned that the budget should build more resilience against a possible downturn. No formal vote was taken in the portion provided, but the committee was preparing the budget package for floor action and final negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill eliminates the requirement for the Air Resources Board to allocate a minimum of $125 million
• This bill allocates $1.7 billion.
• It also makes various other changes to the Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control
• It probably would have been the resources.
• So this budget proposal only increases the allocation from $330 million to $750 million in yearly allocations

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:05:18.160> resources<00:05:18.720> effectively<00:05:19.280> in and allocate
• resources effectively in and allocate resources effectively in their<00:05:19.759> service<00
• resources. Okay, thank you. resources. Okay, thank you.
• And then from those funds, transit providers decide how to allocate the resources to serve their communities
• or other resources.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a Met Council report from Charles Carlson on high-subsidy transit route analysis required by the transportation bill. Carlson explained that the study uses per-passenger operating subsidy, compares routes by type and service day, and is intended to help providers improve cost-effectiveness while recognizing transit’s importance for access, affordability, safety, and the region’s economy. He noted that routes more than 60% above peer averages are considered the highest-subsidy tier, and that the report also estimates the cost of Metro Mobility associated with those routes. Members asked several questions about why contracted service can cost less than directly operated service, whether contracting affects wages, union membership, or service quality, and why the Met Council targets about 20% of regular route service for contracting. Carlson said contracted service can be cheaper because of lower overhead and other market factors, that the council sets minimum wage and service-quality requirements in contracts, and that customers should not notice a quality difference. He also said the 20% target is meant to balance cost-effective service, geography, and a mix of providers, and that some routes may become more cost-effective with more frequent service depending on local demand. Carlson reported that in 2024, 206 of 264 routes met guidelines, 16 were in the lowest intervention tier, 14 in the middle tier, and 28 were in the highest-subsidy tier. He said the regional share of high-subsidy service was about 4.1%, but the share varied widely by provider, with some at 0% and others much higher. He estimated that discontinuing the highest-subsidy routes would save about $23 million annually and up to $72 million in capital costs. For Metro Mobility, he said the cost associated with trips tied to high-subsidy routes rose from about $368,000 in 2023 to about $6.1 million in 2024, largely because the mix of routes triggering federally mandated paratransit service changed, especially in the Shakopee area.

Transcript Highlights:

• demand far exceeds our resources and demand far exceeds our resources and we're<00:59:32.039>
• It's also a national resource, but it's not our job to fund national resources; it's our job to fund
• Minnesota resources.
• places and it's also a national resource places and it's also a national resource um<01:21:58.800
• <01:22:06.560> thanks as Minnesota Resource as well so thanks as Minnesota Resource as well

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are requesting resources to support our 2025 governor's reorganization plan.
• And when resources recycle through, as they will, we want to be...
• And so this would reduce funding for allocation 3 programs.
• .kind of resources are needed to ensure that all of the critical audits that we do are fully resourced
• What does the FTB think it will need for resources in the future? Resources as in positions? Yes.

Summary: The subcommittee first heard an informational presentation on the May Revision’s proposed reorganization of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into separate housing-focused and consumer/business-focused entities. Administration officials said the split would improve oversight, streamline decision-making, and create a dedicated California Housing and Homelessness Agency with a new housing development and finance committee. The Department of Finance said funding was needed in 2025-26 to begin implementation, while the LAO recommended rejecting the proposal without prejudice because the Little Hoover Commission review was still pending and the plan would require ongoing General Fund costs. Members raised concerns about the timing, the lack of alignment with the budget process, and whether the reorganization would improve accountability for homelessness spending; several public witnesses supported the concept but stressed it could not substitute for new housing and homelessness dollars. The committee then took up the Department of Veterans Affairs. CalVet requested funding for phase three of its electronic health care record project and a trailer bill to preserve authority for federal background checks, but the May Revision withdrew requests for deferred maintenance and additional administrative support. The LAO noted deferred maintenance can prevent larger future costs, and the chair criticized the withdrawal of less than $1 million for veterans’ homes as short-sighted given existing repair needs. No vote was taken. Next, the Department of Housing and Community Development presented its budget. HCD said the May Revision provides no new affordable housing or homelessness funding, but does retain existing rounds of funding and proposes a $31.7 million reversion from undersubscribed housing programs. Members from both parties expressed concern about zeroing out ongoing housing and homelessness investments, especially for LIHTC, the Multifamily Housing Program, and HAP. HCD also defended its homelessness accountability and compliance work, saying the unit includes about 30 program staff and six attorneys, with three additional attorneys requested mainly to handle public records and litigation workload. Public commenters largely opposed the lack of new funding and urged continued support for housing and homelessness programs, while some supported the reorganization and accountability efforts. Finally, the committee heard Go-Biz proposals. The administration requested authority to increase funding for a federal trade program match if needed, plus reappropriations for administrative funds tied to the Containerized Ports Interoperability Grant Program, zero-emission vehicle operations, and the Women’s Business Center Enhancement Program. It also proposed withdrawing the Cal Competes grant request and reverting remaining funds from the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund. The LAO said Cal Competes is generally effective but could be cut as a budget solution, while warning that the performing arts fund was close to awards and should be considered carefully. Members objected to pulling back committed funds for performing arts organizations and questioned why the state would withdraw support after applications had already been submitted.

Transcript Highlights:

• For Clean Cars for All, this bill eliminates the requirement for the Air Resources Board to allocate
• It eliminates the requirement for the Air Resources Board to allocate a minimum of $125 million for the
• It also makes various other changes to the Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control
• , and California Air Resources Board statutes.
• It probably would have been the resources, I assume.

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:

• As for the main lanes, do you feel comfortable that the way the resources are being allocated now are
• The allocation has changed over time.
• Were those funds allocated?
• The county does get an allocation. for Metro. And how is that money allocated?
• We can't deliver with less resources.

Bills: HB2065, HB2462, HB2621, HB3187, HB3539, HB3563, HB3726, HB4164, HB4207, HB4368, HB4706, HB4916, HB4950, HB4967, HB5177, HB4429, HB5597

Keywords: commercial vehicles, parking regulations, residential areas, local governance, land use, traffic safety, high occupancy vehicle lane, pregnant operators, transportation, parental rights, motor vehicle regulations, live video feed, state agency, transparency, public safety, regional transportation, mobility program, sales tax, public infrastructure, local government

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 93, grants and allocations. This shows the updated amounts for CTF.
• Under Department of Natural Resources, Section 71 says, Under the Department of Natural Resources, Section
• Section 88 for tax stitches says of the funding allocated, 1.4...
• And section 88 for tax stitches says of the funding allocated, 1.4. Funds.
• And an additional $50,000 is allocated to be funded from eligible federal funds.

Summary: The committee met for a fiscal year 2027 capital budget writing session with all 12 members present. It first reviewed and approved the DNREC Resource Conservation and Development drainage project list, which would add projects across New Castle, Kent, and Sussex counties and bring the total eligible projects to 1,561. Members offered personal remarks thanking retiring conservation district staff, especially Kevin Donnelly, for years of work on drainage and water issues. The committee then reviewed DelDOT Rule 12 changes, including annual date updates and a reduction in the inflation markup applied to older estimates, and approved the rule as amended. The committee next adopted DelDOT Appendix A and the FY27 paving and rehabilitation list, including the subdivision street management fund and various road resurfacing projects. DelDOT explained that paving projects are for state-of-good-repair work and that major changes from corridor studies would be handled separately. The committee also approved DelDOT epilogue changes, including updates to authorization amounts, a $25 million increase for toll infrastructure work, changes to subdivision street paving language, and an increase in the subdivision street paving management fund to $30 million. Several sections were placed on hold for later updates. The committee then moved through boilerplate epilogue sections in the bond bill, approving a wide range of provisions affecting conservation districts, housing, economic development, corrections, DNREC, public safety, transportation, agriculture, fire prevention, education, and other agencies. Many sections were adopted in groups, while some were held for later revisions or deleted as no longer needed. The session included updates to school capital rules, transportation restrictions and reporting requirements, DNREC conservation and land-use provisions, and funding and administrative authorities across multiple agencies. The committee broke for lunch after approving the education-related sections through 147, with additional sections still pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the mitigation allocation was a $4.3 billion. dollar allocation.
• Allocation program for the mitigation dollars.
• . allocate to eligible programs.
• So, whatever funds are left that haven't been allocated...
• On page six is a list of additional allocations.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We removed concurrently funded adults from the community college allocation.
• That TK is a program and that's the state wants to allocate funding there.
• I can address the difference in the allocations. Thank you sir.
• The remaining schedules represent that roughly 11 million. additional resource.
• This is intended to optimize remaining resources.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Once allocated.
• Have their allocations reduced. What happens to that pot of money?
• The original 2022-23 Budget Act allocated $7.9 billion. There was a reduction.
• The regular LCFF allocation has now grown with the enrollment decline.
• If you have multiple needs, you don't see all of the resources.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• incredible ability to make the resources incredible ability to make the resources that<00:05:01.039
• <00:05:10.039> I lines students rely on these resources I lines students rely on these resources
• path to a degree uh directly allocating path to a degree uh directly allocating the<00:24:07.000
• <00:32:20.080> to allocated to allocated to institutions<00:32:23.039> thank<00:32:23.159
• > building put some other resources into building put some other resources into building the<00:37

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:26.520> basis<00:04:26.960> to allocated on a competitive basis to allocated
• those allocating agency who allocates those allocating agency who allocates those low-income<00:
• uh tax credit sub-allocator um agencies. uh tax credit sub-allocator um agencies.
• Many of those developers do score fairly well for the allocation of resources at the Minnesota Housing
• /c><00:33:40.960> Minnesota allocation of resources at the Minnesota allocation of resources at

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So instead of facing a resource delta of 86, to 110, which is what we left with in 2023, we were told
• This is a snapshot called 4CP of just four summer peak days to allocate cost to utilities across the
• No, just resources, okay. Lieutenant King, you want to begin the questions? Thank you, Mr.
• We don't want to come back two years from now and you have not had the resources to do that.
• Uh, and, uh, Can you timely do it, and what additional resources do you need to be able to do it?

Bills: SB 6, SB6, SB504, SB765, SB815, SB929

Keywords: hemp, consumable hemp, hemp-derived cannabinoids, CBD, cannabidiol, CBG, cannabigerol, delta-8, delta-9, intoxicating hemp, hemp gummies, hemp vape, edibles, cannabinoid regulation, hemp licensing, retailer registration, product registration, QR code labeling, child-resistant packaging, minor access

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Environmental Quality Committee and the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources
• My name is Lauren Sanchez, and I am the Chair of the California Air Resources Board.
• Three, does the allocation of allowances reflect legislative priorities?
• Regina Soda, Deputy Executive Officer at the Air Resources Board.
• We've heard a lot about this being a subsidy; the industrial allocation is a subsidy.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee and Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 held a joint hearing on CARB’s proposed amendments to the cap-and-invest regulations. Opening remarks from senators emphasized the 2025 reauthorization of the program through AB 1207 and SB 840, and focused on whether CARB’s April revisions faithfully implement legislative intent while balancing climate ambition, affordability, leakage prevention, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). Several senators raised concerns that the proposal could reduce GGRF revenues, weaken funding for transit, affordable housing, wildfire prevention, drinking water, and other community programs, and shift too much support toward industry. Others stressed the need to protect businesses and consumers from higher costs and to avoid leakage and refinery closures. Senator Cortese’s statement, read into the record, warned that the proposal could jeopardize transportation funding commitments. CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez said the amendments respond to legislative direction and public comment, and described four main changes: increased electric bill credits, a larger manufacturing decarbonization incentive (MDI), additional compliance support for industry, and removal of post-2030 allowance allocations from the current rulemaking. She said the proposal keeps the cap aligned with 2030 and 2045 targets, maintains affordability protections, and is intended to reduce emissions while minimizing leakage and supporting in-state jobs. CARB staff also said the MDI would have guardrails, require applications and reporting, and be tied to emissions-reducing facility upgrades. The Department of Finance explained that GGRF revenue estimates are highly uncertain and are updated periodically based on auction data. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the amendments are significant and could materially affect environmental ambition, industry support, utility credits, and GGRF revenues. LAO highlighted that the MDI could add allowances above the cap, potentially reducing certainty that 2030 targets will be met, and noted that the proposal appears to shift more allowances to industry and fewer to GGRF than current regulations. LAO also said the proposed GGRF estimate of about $8 billion through the decade could be insufficient to fully fund lower-priority tiers of programs. In questioning, senators pressed CARB on whether the proposal would raise consumer costs, whether free allowances or MDI funds would actually lower prices at the pump, how leakage is measured, and whether the Legislature’s budget assumptions would need to be revised before final action. No votes were taken during the hearing; the discussion was informational and focused on questioning CARB and fiscal staff ahead of the board’s planned May 28 consideration of the amendments.

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.
• So there's something about how to ensure that that resource is equitably available.
• And enrollment declining, where resources will continue to be available.

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:

• And so these issues of allocation of those kinds of resources... are things that districts have to think
• one-time money was allocated to one-time costs.
• How much of that is allocated? Sorry, where are those?
• available resources to the most pressing needs.
• That was a one-time allocation.

Keywords: infrastructure, water supply, flood mitigation, Texas Water Fund, community projects, funding allocations

Summary: During this committee meeting, the focus was on discussing critical infrastructure funding, especially related to water supply and flood mitigation projects. Chairwoman Stepney and the Water Development Board presented extensive details regarding the Texas Water Fund, which included $1 billion appropriated to assist various financial programs and tackle pressing water and wastewater issues. Additionally, funding allocations aimed at compromising the state's flood risk and improving water conservation were hotly debated, emphasizing collaboration among committee members and the necessity of addressing community needs in such projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is directionally toward this idea of allocating resources to a particular at-risk group, which is
• Resources are going to the students who need them.
• And we've got the money and resources. Henry Winters, thank you.
• And we've got the money and resources. Henry Winters, thank you.
• I've included those as an additional resource.