Transcript Highlights:

• I want to take a moment to thank what happened last year, thank the Governor and the Legislature for
• . ...all of their proposed statutory changes are implemented basically immediately by the Legislature
• So it's not clear whether the Legislature will approve some or all or none of those.
• And so... ...the Legislature will approve some or all or none of those.
• You alluded to what the Legislature originally approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• That was legislation that the Legislature adopted in 2022, so not too long ago.
• legislature adopted in 2022, so not too long ago.
• So I think those are the real questions that the Legislature has before it. Thank you.
• Does the Legislature want to find that money and dedicate that money to the project?
• So how do you plan to communicate with the legislature when it comes to the feasibility.

Committee: House Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• That was the year that the legislature approved 24 new staff.
• Those enhancements were approved by the legislature.
• That was the year that the legislature approved 24 new staff for the division.
• The governor's recommendation is to ask the legislature to find an...
• Recommendation is to ask the legislature to find an additional $67 million.

Summary: The committee heard a budget presentation on the Division of Medicaid within the Department of Health and Welfare, including an overview of the division’s five programs, staffing, spending trends, and the large share of the budget that goes to trust and benefit payments. Ms. Williamson explained the difference between ongoing and one-time enhancements, the role of population forecast adjustments, and why the fiscal year 2026 and 2027 numbers change significantly. Members asked about the growth in the budget, the FMAP match rate, the impact of provider rate changes, and the shift of some positions into Medicaid from other divisions after last year’s reorganization. A major topic was House Bill 345 and related budget changes, including the hospital assessment fund alignment, the 4% provider rate reduction, and the effect on Medicaid expansion and other populations. The committee discussed the decline in expansion enrollment, rising costs in traditional Medicaid populations, and the governor’s recommendation to offset part of the 2027 increase with additional reductions. Members raised concerns about access to care, especially for dental, behavioral health, developmental disability, and home- and community-based services, while the deputy director said the department is trying to contain costs through prior authorization, fraud and abuse work, and policy changes. The committee also focused on the MMIS replacement project, which is in year four of a five-year procurement and is funded through dedicated and federal dollars tied to milestones. Another significant item was estate recovery, where the department requested funding to replace an outdated case management system and add contractor support to address a backlog of roughly 20,000 cases; members questioned the return on investment and asked for more detail on the software and staffing split. The deputy director also explained the federally qualified health center reconciliation issue, saying the state had not been properly paying change-in-scope amounts and is now using a new process with interim payments and later reconciliation. In addition, lawmakers asked about program integrity staffing, the use of AI, and whether the department could better target fraud, waste, and abuse investigations. The deputy director said the department is reviewing AI use cautiously and sees opportunities for it in claims review and anomaly detection, but emphasized that the current request is for dedicated receipt authority rather than general funds. No formal votes were taken in the excerpt, but the committee received the presentation, asked extensive questions, and was told that some follow-up information would be provided later.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:31:34.600><c> And</c><00:31:34.800><c> so,</c> the legislature. And so, the legislature.
• </c> legislature asked for. legislature asked for.
• </c> the legislature to expire in 2027. the legislature to expire in 2027.
• </c> that's what the legislature would like. that's what the legislature would like.
• </c> because that's our role as legislature. because that's our role as legislature.

Bills: HF4110 , HF4101 , HF4144 , HF3546

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• And, as I said, lastly, I'll go over some key decision points and questions for the Legislature.
• Lastly, does the Legislature wish to consider program structures outside of realignment?
• Is that the level of basic service that the Legislature wants to prioritize for these things?
• So there are a number of tradeoffs the Legislature has to consider. And Dr.
• I do feel obligated to remind us there were proposals from the Legislature this year.

Summary: The hearing focused on the expected health coverage losses tied to H.R. 1, the resulting pressure on California’s county indigent care systems, and what data and policy changes the Legislature may need before the next budget cycle. Chair Hart and Assemblymember Addis framed the issue as a major rollback in coverage that could leave more Californians uninsured and push more people into county safety-net programs. Members repeatedly emphasized the need for baseline, county-by-county data on eligibility, benefits, caseloads, and funding before making larger structural decisions. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained the history of county indigent care under Welfare and Institutions Code 17000, the shift in funding through 1991 realignment, and the later redirection of funds to CalWORKs. LAO said county programs vary widely in scope and eligibility, that current realignment funding does not automatically rise with demand, and that the Legislature faces tradeoffs if it changes the funding structure. Administration witnesses from Finance and DHCS projected large Medi-Cal and Covered California enrollment losses, with DHCS estimating more than 1 million Medi-Cal members could eventually lose coverage under work requirements and redeterminations, and noting that a new federal rule could make exemptions more restrictive. Officials also said there is no single statewide real-time data system for uninsured or indigent care populations, though some hospital and utilization data exists with significant lags. County representatives from Santa Barbara, San Diego, and Tulare described how their indigent care programs are being rebuilt or strained after years of low demand. They warned that many newly uninsured residents will need only basic, emergency-oriented care under county programs, not the preventive and continuous care available through Medi-Cal, and said that without new state support counties may have to divert funds from public health or reduce other services. Several counties asked for bridge funding, technical statutory changes, and flexibility to adjust realignment methodology. The California Health Care Foundation closed by arguing that the problem is statewide and needs a statewide solution rather than a patchwork county response.

Transcript Highlights:

• Right now, a lot of the data that we're able to provide to the Legislature...
• We're seeing the value to our students, to our system, and ultimately to the Legislature.
• This is an update on the Student Housing Grant Program, which the legislature...
• It just takes this act of the legislature potentially.
• We would ask the Legislature to consider exempting us from these reductions.

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:

• Bills and some pension studies that came out of the legislature.
• So this last interim, the Select Committee also made recommendations to the 2026 legislature.
• The legislature, and today I'll be talking about five bills.
• And so we serve both the Select Committee and the entire legislature as a whole.
• And so we serve both the Select Committee and the entire legislature as a whole.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• So the legislature came in and adopted that as the law.
• Our population demands it, and the Legislature has recognized that.
• Our population demands it, and the Legislature has recognized that.
• I think the Legislature is drawing a balance.
• Absent the Legislature?

Bills: HB5489 , HB5695 , HB5699 , SB291 , SB292

Committee: House Land & Resource Management

Keywords: impact fee, moratorium, local government, Texas legislation, infrastructure funding, municipal utility district, eminent domain, bonds, assessments, infrastructure, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Harris County, Municipal Utility District, territory exclusion, debt service taxes, property taxation, condemnation, property acquisition, real property, appraisal reports

Transcript Highlights:

• But, you know, we come together as a legislature.
• This legislature clearly needs to get the priorities straight.
• And today the legislature will be doing that.
• The Florida legislature does not. ...there with property taxes.
• The Florida legislature does not have that.

Transcript Highlights:

• This was a promise made by the legislature last session.
• We appreciate the task at hand for the legislature. It is a very difficult one.
• Finally, we urge the legislature to advance Senate Bill 5911 and Senate Bill 5940.
• We want to thank the governor and the legislature for maintaining the funding.
• The legislature committed to pollution limits in law that we need to achieve.

Bills: SB5998

Committee: Senate Ways & Means

Keywords: fiscal appropriations, budget, state funding, financial management, operating expenses

Transcript Highlights:

• The $20 million allocation, which the Legislature put in, is to support that.
• We appreciate the Legislature holding...
• We want to thank the Legislature for recognizing the need to fund Proposition 36.
• We want to thank the Legislature for recognizing the need to fund Proposition 36.
• I want to thank the Legislature and the Governor for restoring the cuts.

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:

• So, we consider ourselves a good deal for the legislature.
• It was our understanding from the legislature that we wanted to.
• I think there's a thought that the legislature not Not necessarily wrong, but it thought the legislature
• Again, this isn't something that we typically come to the legislature and ask for the legislature to
• So, in FY26 Again, the legislature removed that $2,82,000.

Committee: House A&B Health Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislature would set the uniform procedure for this provision.
• That is really up to the Legislature, after it passes in November, for the Legislature to come back and
• The Legislature would allow for them, if they needed to, by referendum... ...The Legislature would allow
• That's up to future legislatures and policy decision-makers to determine.
• How is the legislature going to adapt? How is the state going to adapt?

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, the proposed constitutional amendment on property tax relief, which would reduce assessment growth on non-homestead property, expand homestead exemptions, create a new exemption for new homesteaders, and direct counties, cities, and school districts to use property tax revenues for specified core services. Senator Avila presented the measure as the governor’s plan to provide historic relief and argued that local governments should tighten budgets and prioritize core functions. Senators raised concerns about the lack of fiscal scoring, the breadth and ambiguity of the permitted uses, the effect on special districts and local services, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. The committee adopted several amendments, including Avila’s amendment clarifying that ad valorem revenues could be used for county and municipal operations and administration and other expenditures not prohibited by law, and Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal. Other amendments failed, including proposals to allow user fees and non-ad valorem assessments, add a sunset, redirect tourism development taxes, narrow the small-business provision, and change the ballot title to reference local service reductions. Grall’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund requirement was adopted, while the committee also rejected Berman’s title-change amendment and Smith’s sunset and tourism-tax amendments. The committee then returned to the bill as amended for questions, including extended debate over whether the proposal would affect noncitizen residents, the impact on local government finances, and whether local governments would respond with higher fees or special assessments. The meeting ended with the bill still under discussion after the final round of questions, with Avila saying he would continue working with the governor’s office on the language before the next vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Will this joint session of the Alaska State Legislature please come to order?
• President, I move that the legislature override the governor's veto of House Bill 52.
• And it ensures that the legislature and the public have access Inspections and ensures that the legislature
• President, I move that the legislature override the governor's... Mr.
• The legislature recognized this when passing HUSP 145 a few years ago.

Summary: The Alaska Legislature met in joint session with a quorum to consider veto overrides on five bills: HB 52 on minors in psychiatric hospitals, SB 41 on mental health education, HB 314 on architects, engineers, surveyors, and interior designers, SB 21 on the Alaska Work and Save Program, and HB 195 on pharmacists and physician associates. Supporters of HB 52 argued it would improve transparency, family communication, oversight, and reporting in psychiatric treatment for minors; opponents were not recorded in the excerpt. The joint session voted 36-24 to sustain the governor’s veto, so HB 52 did not become law through override. For SB 41, supporters said the bill would create developmentally appropriate mental health education guidance for schools and help address Alaska’s high suicide rate, while the governor argued it would intrude on local control. The override failed 38-22. For HB 314, members said the bill was needed to extend the AELS Board and avoid disruption to professional licensing and oversight; the override passed 45-15, so the veto was overridden. For SB 21, supporters said the Work and Save Program would expand retirement savings access for workers and small businesses, including an option to direct PFD funds to retirement; the override failed 39-21. For HB 195, supporters said it would expand access to care by allowing pharmacists to provide more services under a standard-of-care model, especially benefiting rural residents and families seeking lower-cost treatment, while opponents raised concerns about abortion-related implications and scope. The joint session voted 43-17 to override the veto, so HB 195 was enacted over the governor’s objection. The session then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we fast-track these policies through the Legislature. I opposed them.
• I'm going to jam the Legislature.' And you know what?
• And we fast-track these policies through the legislature. I opposed them.
• This is not a new decision that we are asking the Legislature to make.
• or that the Legislature is comfortable with these changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• We recommend the Legislature approve this proposal.
• For at least the Legislature to understand what choices we have to make. Absolutely.
• He asked the subcommittee and the Legislature to provide that funding. Thank you.
• She said the Legislature has already done the hard work of passing SB 53.
• We urge the Legislature to include this proposal in the budget. Thank you. Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• Will this joint session of the Alaska State Legislature please come to order?
• This is one of the most serious issues we’ve dealt with in my time in the legislature.
• President, I move that the legislature override the governor&#039;s...
• President, I move that the legislature...
• The legislature recognized this when passing HUSP 145 a few years ago.

Summary: The Alaska Legislature met in joint session to consider gubernatorial vetoes of five bills. Members first took up House Bill 52 on minors and psychiatric hospitals, with supporters arguing it would improve transparency, family communication, oversight, and reporting around seclusion and restraint in psychiatric facilities. Opponents of the veto cited DOJ findings and media reports about abuses at a North Star facility. The override failed, 36-24, falling short of the 40 votes needed. The joint session then considered Senate Bill 41 on mental health education. Supporters said it would help develop age-appropriate mental health curriculum and could aid suicide prevention, while critics argued it was mischaracterized and did not impose a state takeover of local schools. The veto override failed, 38-22. Members next considered House Bill 314 on architects, engineers, surveyors, and interior designers, focusing on the AELS Board’s continuation and the need for professional oversight during major infrastructure work. That override passed, 45-15. The legislature then voted on Senate Bill 21, the Alaska Work and Save Program, which supporters said would expand retirement savings access for workers and small businesses, including an option to direct PFD funds into retirement accounts. The override failed, 39-21. Finally, House Bill 195 on pharmacists and physician assistants was debated as a health care access measure that would let pharmacists provide more services under a standard-of-care model; supporters said it would reduce costs and improve access, while some members raised concerns about scope and abortion-related issues. The veto override passed, 43-17. The joint session then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Recognizing these challenges, the Legislature included significant resources in the 2026 budget act to
• And as I said, lastly, go over some key decision points and questions for the Legislature.
• Lastly, does the Legislature wish to consider program structures outside of realignment?
• So there are a number of tradeoffs the Legislature has to consider. And Dr.
• I do feel obligated to remind us there were proposals from the Legislature this year.

Transcript Highlights:

• So if the Legislature is interested in this proposal, it may want to consult with counsel to ensure that
• Even in challenging fiscal years, the Governor and the Legislature have recognized the value of higher
• Our recommendation regarding this proposal would be for the Legislature to reject the regarding this
• proposal would be for the Legislature to reject the spending proposal, and this recommendation is based
• First, we wish to thank the Legislature for passing AB 1348 (Bradford) in 2024, which We thank the Legislature

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision proposals for higher education, beginning with the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education. Finance proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan used to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to allow budget flexibility for a remaining legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting the litigation costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about waiving interest on the loan, noting that special fund loans have historically been repaid with interest. Members asked about the litigation amount and the estimated interest savings, which Finance said would be about $245,000. The committee then discussed University of California funding, including the Governor’s proposed compact funding and a $1.5 million one-time increase for the First Star foster youth program at UC campuses. UC said the program has strong outcomes at UCLA, including a 100% college-going rate and high college completion rates, and that the new funding would expand the program to additional campuses and eventually be self-supporting through fundraising. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing that UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and that the new initiative would duplicate existing services. Several senators questioned whether the state should expand a new program instead of strengthening existing ones, while UC and Finance emphasized the program’s focus on foster youth and its high success rates. For the California Community Colleges, Finance outlined the May Revision’s increase to the Student-Centered Funding Formula COLA from 2.41% to 4.31%, along with enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time investments. The Chancellor’s Office supported the flexible “super COLA” approach and asked for more enrollment growth funding, arguing that many districts are already above current targets and that unfunded growth restricts access. The LAO recommended funding at least the statutory COLA, redirecting some ongoing funds to enrollment growth or one-time priorities, and rejecting the $9.7 million Adult Learner Demonstration Project because districts already have incentives to do similar work. Senators pressed Finance and the Chancellor’s Office on the use of COLA funds to cover the new paid pregnancy disability leave requirement, the impact on hold-harmless and basic-aid districts, and whether the state should fund actual enrollment growth rather than a flat COLA. The committee also reviewed California Student Aid Commission proposals, including adjustments to Cal Grant and Middle Class Scholarship funding, continued Golden State Teacher Grant funding, and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance said the Middle Class Scholarship changes reflected updated caseload estimates and that the higher 35% unmet-need level had been one-time funding, while CSAC urged continued support and noted the importance of financial aid for student success. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding as not well-targeted and urged caution on Workforce Pell trailer bill language, citing uncertainty about federal rules, ongoing administrative workload, and the need for clearer implementation planning. Members also raised concerns about declining CADAA applications and the need to better promote state aid for undocumented and mixed-status students. No votes were taken during the transcripted portion, and the committee moved through the agenda items with questions and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• It provides more flexibility to the Legislature to have your input on it.
• So how will you engage with the Legislature in the next few months before the May revise?
• The Legislature and the administration can always exceed that and put more in.
• So not all of the increase in spending is a result of new policy choices by the Legislature.
• How should the Legislature think about prioritizing investments in Medi-Cal programs?

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review