Transcript Highlights:

• spending threshold. spending threshold.
• is spending above the excess spending is spending above the excess spending threshold<01:04:57.920
• school spending increasing. school spending increasing.
• all driving spending. all driving spending.
• . spending. spending.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A few other high-level points: we would propose limiting spending to trend revenue growth, along with
• A few other high-level points: we would propose limiting spending to trend revenue growth, along with
• A few other high-level points: we would propose limiting spending to trend revenue growth, along with
• A few other high-level points: we would propose limiting spending to trend revenue growth, along with
• A few other high-level points: we would propose limiting spending to trend revenue growth, along with

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 4, as amended, was heard in committee. The bill proposes a constitutional amendment to create a Minnesota tax relief account that would capture projected general fund revenues exceeding 105% of projected expenditures and return those funds to taxpayers, primarily through property tax relief or income tax relief. The committee adopted an amendment to put the bill in the author’s preferred shape, and later adopted a technical amendment from Representative Smith to insert the word “projected” before “expenditures” on line 2.2. Representative Johnson presented the bill as an affordability measure meant to return surplus money to the people rather than create new spending, arguing it would help homeowners and taxpayers if a surplus occurs. Ranna Lee of Americans for Prosperity supported the concept of returning surplus funds to taxpayers but also urged broader tax and budget reforms, including triggers for rate reductions and changes to budgeting practices. Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project and Eric Bernstein of We Make Minnesota opposed the proposal, warning that embedding budget and tax rules in the Constitution would reduce legislative flexibility, weaken public investment, shift costs to local governments, and make it harder to respond to recessions or emergencies. Members raised questions about how the formula would work, who would qualify for refunds, whether corporations with property tax liability could benefit, and how the proposal would handle forecast-based calculations and unexpected events such as pandemics or federal policy changes. House research and committee staff clarified that the bill would need to go to Ways and Means and then Rules to satisfy House requirements for constitutional amendments, and that a fiscal note had been requested and was in process. The committee did not take final action on the bill in the portion of the transcript provided, but the motion before it was to recommend passage and send House File 4 to Ways and Means.

Transcript Highlights:

• Same with counties and cities, um, schools are limited in how they can spend their funds.
• in how they can schools are limited in how they can spend<01:12:29.720> their<01:12:29.840>
• Further, the model may necessitate spending limits.
• <01:31:39.720> limits.
• spending limits. spending limits.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Budget Process 00:02:28 Allotment Process 00:10:30 School Facilities Construction Commission 00:29:10 Role of KDE in School Facilities Funding 00:47:00 Kentucky School Boards Association 01:13:25 Elementary and Secondary School Construction 01:20:40 Perkins V Funding 01:35:32, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The budget we passed holds the line, spending less than last year and reducing per capita spending.
• We've been reducing spending. We reduced spending in 2025, in '26.
• to spend their money on.
• Allowed to spend their money on.
• Based on if we continue to spend like we have been spending, bad things were going to happen, and it

Summary: The Senate took up Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F, a proposed constitutional amendment on property tax reform. The measure would increase the homestead exemption in stages, lower the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limit county and municipal ad valorem tax revenues to specified uses such as public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resources, debt service, employee benefits, and certain administrative costs. Supporters, led by Senator Avila, argued the proposal would provide meaningful property tax relief and push local governments to rein in spending, while opponents warned it would shift costs to fees, reduce local flexibility, and threaten funding for core services. Several amendments were offered and rejected. Senator Sharief proposed an income-based circuit breaker for property tax relief; Senator Smith offered a sunset clause; and Senator Berman proposed revising the ballot statement to better match the amended proposal and remove outdated references. Each amendment failed on recorded votes. During questioning and debate, senators pressed Avila on the ballot language, the effect on local services, whether the legislature could later restrict local spending by statute, and whether renters would benefit. Avila said the ballot language was not his and repeatedly stated he was presenting the governor’s proposal, while also saying local governments would need to prioritize budgets and that future legislatures could address implementation details. After the amendment votes, the joint resolution was read a third time and moved into final debate. Supporters said the proposal would give homeowners relief and force fiscal discipline at the local level. Opponents, including Senators Nathan, Bracey Davis, Smith, Polsky, and Errington, argued the measure was rushed, lacked a completed fiscal analysis or replacement revenue, and could harm police, fire, libraries, parks, housing, and other local services. They also criticized the ballot summary as misleading, especially regarding the staged homestead exemption increase. The transcript ends during debate, before any final vote on the joint resolution itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• and where are they going to spend it, et cetera.
• their money how they want to spend it.
• money how that local government wants to spend it.
• The 75-word limit actually came about as...
• So, as a result, it was limited to 75 words.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Under current law, cities and counties do not have to adhere to the same spending limits, uh, that are
• Bill provides for exceptions to this limit in the case where voters approved going over the spending
• limit, spending limit or in cases, uh, of, uh, governor declared disasters.
• The Committee substitute, uh, clarifies that in these cases where the spending limit is exceeded because
• Let's do the, let's do the spending side.

Transcript Highlights:

• Women spend more; the older you are, the more spending you engage in.
• Note that we are measuring four items: acute inpatient spending, professional care spending, outpatient
• care spending, and pharmacy.
• you spend.
• That time limit—who's imposing a time limit on the doctors in your example?

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• other could just be spending.
• other could just be spending.
• other could just be spending.
• other could just be spending.
• other could just be spending.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So since you're the reliability guru, from 2015 to 2019, well, Delmarva's spending was limited in terms
• Over that time, spending was limited, and yet reliability steadily improved and actually achieved superior
• the spending piece.
• So there's no decreasing their spend.
• This level of spending is that level of spending, or they were spending less to achieve those improvements

Bills: SB287

Keywords: solid waste, recycling, universal recycling, single-stream recycling, multifamily housing, apartment recycling, commercial recycling, waste diversion, recycling grants, low-interest loans, Delaware Recycling Fund, Delaware Solid Waste Authority, DNREC, waste hauler, curbside recycling, yard waste, source-separated recycling, pay-as-you-throw, extended producer responsibility, waste bans

Summary: The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee met and considered three Senate bills. SB 287 with Senate Amendment 2, a DNREC cleanup bill on recycling, would tighten recycling collection rules for haulers and commercial generators, require multifamily recycling education, repurpose the Delaware Recycling Fund, and add annual reporting; after brief questions and no public comment, the committee motion to release did not initially receive enough votes, so the bill was circulated for signatures. SB 346, which would speed Environmental Appeals Board hearing and decision timelines so DNREC secretary decisions become final if deadlines are missed, drew support from the Nature Conservancy and also failed to get enough votes at the meeting, so it too was circulated for signatures. The committee then took up SB 326, a major utility-regulation bill sponsored by Senator Hanson and Representative Heffernan that would cap certain non-mandatory utility spending, limit interim rates, increase oversight and transparency, and streamline rate-setting. SB 326 generated extensive testimony and debate. Supporters, including the Public Advocate, Sierra Club, PSC staff, and some legislators, argued that Delmarva Power’s spending on non-mandatory infrastructure has risen far faster than inflation, that the company is a regulated monopoly, and that the bill would help restrain future delivery-rate increases without harming reliability because mandatory reliability, storm response, and vegetation management spending would remain allowed. Opponents, including Delmarva Power, business groups, contractors, labor representatives, and the Delaware Contractors Association, argued the cap would delay needed reliability and capacity projects, hurt economic development, reduce jobs, and interfere with utility planning; they also said supply costs, not distribution spending, are the main driver of recent bill increases. After public comment and additional questioning, the committee voted to release SB 326 on a split roll call, but because several members were absent the bill was also walked for additional signatures. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what do we spend our money on?
• committee um looking at the spending committee um looking at the spending Trends<00:12:59.480>
• where we've we had um you know limited where we've we had um you know limited growth<00:20:21.720
• curbing um increased growth in spending curbing um increased growth in spending and<00:25:29.679
• So this would put a limitation, kind of a more standardized limitation, on the number of days, which

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It also creates some limitations.
• It changes the home equity limits.
• Currently, home equity limits are at about 1.097 million. ...amounts currently, home equity limits are
• So what really drives operating budget spending?
• So what really drives operating budget spending?

Summary: The committee held a work session focused first on juvenile rehabilitation system capacity. DCYF officials said the juvenile rehabilitation population is older, includes more adult-sentenced youth, and has longer lengths of stay, especially for “post-25” youth who must remain in secure facilities and cannot go to community beds. They described overcrowding at Green Hill School, placement limits at Echo Glen and Harbor Heights, staffing turnover, mental health acuity, and the need for more medium-security and specialized mental health beds. DCYF said it is pursuing a Parkland facility proposal, a staffing model decision package, and a broader feasibility study and master plan update. No votes were taken; members were asked to follow up with questions later. The committee then heard on behavioral health system capacity from the Behavioral Health Administration and the Health Care Authority. DSHS described growth in forensic and civil bed need, expansion at Olympic Heritage, Maple Lane, and Brockman, and construction of a new 350-bed forensic hospital at Western State expected to open in 2028. HCA reported progress on long-term civil commitment beds, intensive behavioral health treatment facilities, PACT teams, and intensive residential treatment teams, saying the community-based system is being expanded to support step-down care and reduce hospital reliance. Members asked about whether capacity is right-sized, the difference between facility types, and federal match eligibility for services. A federal funding update followed, covering the effects of H.R. 1 and H.R. 5371 on SNAP, Medicaid, marketplace coverage, long-term services and supports, K-12, higher education, and hemp regulation. OFM and agency staff said H.R. 1 adds work requirements, changes non-citizen eligibility, increases state administrative and benefit costs, reduces Medicaid and marketplace subsidies for some groups, tightens redeterminations, and may significantly affect provider payments and state-directed payments. H.R. 5371 extended federal funding through January 30, 2026 and included some agency appropriations and other provisions, including changes affecting hemp producers. Members asked about SNAP error rates and special enrollment periods. Finally, budget coordinator Mary Monroe gave a 2026 supplemental budget preview. She reviewed the state’s near general fund outlook, noting revenue declines since the enacted budget, the effect of reversions, and a preliminary maintenance-level outlook showing a projected increase in NGFO spending over the four-year period. She said the supplemental will reflect updated caseload and cost forecasts and mandatory impacts from H.R. 1, but not policy proposals. No actions or votes were taken during the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• would be limited to federal funds.
• If we don't receive the grant, we just don't spend the money.
• This is prohibitions, limitations.
• So there is going to be some limitations on what we can do.
• She said that is a limiting factor and confirmed to Representative Nelson that it is a limiting factor

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Appropriations Division met in a work session on the draft Rural Health Transformation appropriations bill, 25.1392.01000, with no public testimony taken. Legislative Council and the Department of Health and Human Services walked through the bill, which would appropriate about $397.8 million in federal grant funds over two federal fiscal years, provide transfer authority, allow certain federal funds to be used for salaries and wages without counting against existing transfer limits, and authorize OMB to adjust other agencies’ spending authority if they receive grant awards through HHS. The bill also includes several temporary statutory exemptions to help implement the program, plus recipient acknowledgement/reporting requirements, periodic reports to Legislative Management, and an immediate effective date upon filing. Committee discussion focused heavily on how the federal rural health transformation money can be used and administered. Department officials explained that CMS will review projects for allowability and sustainability, that the state has flexibility to move funds among categories, and that the grant is limited to 10% administrative costs. Members asked about whether the funding could support renovations, equipment, ambulances, bulk purchasing, food distribution, and other rural health ideas, and were told many details will depend on CMS approval and the eventual applications. Questions also addressed cash flow, timing of obligations and reimbursements, FTE funding, and whether grant recipients should be told the program will not continue beyond the federal period; officials said the language is meant to prevent expectations of automatic continuation, not to bar future legislative action. The committee also discussed the bill’s use of a two-year appropriation amount, with staff explaining that the state must appropriate enough authority to cover the federal grant cycle and that unused authority would lapse if the full amount is not received or spent. Members raised concerns about whether the bill’s language could limit creativity or future program design, but department officials and several members emphasized the need for flexibility because CMS may reject overly specific directives. After discussion, the committee voted to recommend the bill draft to the full committee; the motion carried on a roll call vote, and the chair said the full Joint Appropriations Committee would take up the bill at the special session next week.

Transcript Highlights:

• limits, the pay-as-you-go limit has capacity of $11.6 billion.
• The tax spending limit has capacity of $4.8 billion and the consolidated general revenue limit has. is
• At the moment, the controlling limit is the tax spending limit. with 4.8 billion dollars although these
• Again, it is about limiting the growth of tax. rates.
• limit.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we felt like that doesn't limit anything, but yet it does... $36,000 to spend over that four-year
• So I'm spending more money trying to do that.
• And just because we have limitations, there's limitations with public school, there's limitations with
• And just because we have limitations, there's limitations with public school, there's limitations with
• But direct pay is limited.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a nine times increase in spending.
• We have repeated mandates to limit the amount of contributions to candidates, but there is no limitation
• Corporations spend because they can. alone is too often ignored.
• Corporations spend because they can.
• Corporations spend because they can.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and recognized several birthdays and guests. The body then handled procedural motions, including a successful motion to advance measures reported by the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee and to adopt authors’ amendments, both on 28-8 votes. AB 28 and AB 2539 were moved to the inactive file at the request of the authors. The Senate also confirmed two gubernatorial appointments: Maggie Hallahan to the Bodina Waterways Commission and Kansasaki to the Building Standards Commission, both by unanimous roll call. On third reading, the Senate adopted SR 112, designating June 14-20 as Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Awareness Week, with remarks emphasizing the importance of family health history, early screening, and cancer prevention. The chamber also adopted SCR 181, declaring June 10 Family Justice Center Day in California; supporters described Family Justice Centers as trauma-informed, wraparound service hubs for survivors of domestic violence, elder abuse, child abuse, and human trafficking, and several members and advocates from the California Family Justice Center Network were introduced in the gallery. The Senate then debated and passed SJR 18, a resolution opposing Citizens United and urging limits on corporate and dark-money spending in elections. Supporters argued that unlimited political spending undermines democracy and transparency, while opponents raised concerns about unions, nonprofit advocacy, and the need for broader campaign finance reform; the resolution passed 28-8. The consent calendar and special consent calendar were adopted without objection, with item 93 receiving a 35-0 vote and the remaining consent items passing unanimously. The session concluded with adjournment-in-memory tributes for Larry Mazzola, Sr., a longtime San Francisco labor leader; Steve Zaley, a longtime county and state public servant; and James J. McClain Sr., a retired Air Force master sergeant and postal worker. The Senate announced it would recess and reconvene on Monday, June 15, 2026, at 2 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so that, in our mind, makes it even more important to limit new spending to those that you actually
• And so that in our mind makes it even more important to limit those new spending to those that you actually
• Rachel, you mentioned $32 million in new spending that's been proposed. $32 million in new spending has
• Did you consider the spending on the Delta levees and the subsidence repair in new discretionary spending
• Spending commitments.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the May Revision from the Department of Finance and comments from the Legislative Analyst’s Office on the state’s overall budget condition and natural resources proposals. Finance said the May Revision keeps the budget balanced in 2026-27 and 2027-28, reduces the structural deficit, and includes major natural resources items such as Proposition 4 climate bond spending, including up to $125 million for the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, $23.2 million for wildlife refuge and wetland projects, $25 million for Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, $25 million for Bay-Delta environmental flows, $1 million for coexisting-with-wildlife work, and $2.5 million for cancer-risk research. The LAO said revenues remain strong but argued the budget still relies too heavily on reserves, recommended more savings and fewer new discretionary expenditures, and urged the Legislature to prioritize only urgent health and safety needs while planning for uncertainty in greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues. Members focused heavily on the Golden Gate Fields purchase, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, the wildlife coexistence initiative, and cap-and-invest funding for transit. On Golden Gate Fields, agency officials said the property is a time-limited, once-in-a-generation opportunity, that the state’s contribution would help secure the acquisition, and that the land would ultimately transfer to East Bay Regional Park District, which would assume operations and maintenance. Officials said the site would be remediated by the current owner, the state would use deed restrictions to prevent commercial development, and the remaining purchase price would be covered by nonstate partners. On Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, Finance and the Natural Resources Agency said the $25 million would support scientific monitoring and early implementation of the Bay-Delta plan update, while the LAO questioned the timing and said the request was premature until the Water Board formally adopts the plan. The committee also discussed the coexisting-with-wildlife proposal and wolf-livestock conflict. Finance said the May Revision’s $1 million proposal would backfill existing funds to support limited-term staffing, deterrence tools, and conflict response, while members and the California Cattlemen’s Association said the need is larger and includes direct loss compensation, indirect loss compensation, and nonlethal deterrence. The Cattlemen’s Association said private insurance is limited and often inadequate for these losses. Members also raised concerns about the greenhouse gas reduction fund and transit, warning that lower auction revenues and possible CARB rule changes could leave major transit and other tier-three priorities underfunded. The LAO recommended planning for multiple revenue scenarios and reconsidering the current cap-and-invest spending framework. No votes or formal actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• FQHCs today represent only 8% of the 340B spend. Thank you.
• FQHCs today represent only 8% of the 340B spend.
• These evaluations ensure governments spend wisely and patients get value.
• So I want to thank everybody for testifying, coming in to spend the time with us.
• So I want to thank everybody for testifying, coming in to spend the time with us.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a lengthy hearing on a large docket of pharmacy and drug-pricing bills, with most testimony focused on PBM reform, 340B drug discount program protections, specialty medication access, and medication adherence. Chair James Murphy and Senator Paul Feeney opened the hearing and took testimony from legislators, patient advocates, pharmacists, health center leaders, industry representatives, and policy groups. Several speakers described delays, denials, high out-of-pocket costs, and pharmacy closures tied to PBM practices, while others emphasized the importance of community health centers and independent pharmacies in serving patients. On the 340B program, supporters including Senator Eldridge, Senator Payano, Community Care Cooperative, Fenway Health, the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, and several community health center leaders argued that bills such as H. 1107 and S. 819 would stop discriminatory PBM and manufacturer practices, preserve contract pharmacy access, and protect safety-net providers that say they reinvest savings into care, pharmacy expansion, interpreter services, behavioral health, and other services. Opponents including PhRMA, the Community Liver Alliance, and a public policy analyst argued the program lacks transparency and accountability, has grown beyond its original purpose, and may benefit large hospitals and for-profit entities more than low-income patients. They urged more reporting and oversight rather than expanding protections. On PBM reform, testimony supported bills including H. 1157, H. 1234, S. 724, S. 831, and related measures that would require rebate pass-through, ban spread pricing, limit steering to PBM-owned pharmacies, and improve reimbursement for community pharmacies. Independent pharmacists and patients said current PBM practices raise costs, create administrative burdens, and threaten access to local pharmacies. PCMA, representing PBMs, opposed the reforms, arguing PBMs lower costs, that plan sponsors choose to contract with them, and that the Health Policy Commission and CHIA should complete their ongoing study before new mandates are adopted. The committee also heard support for H. 1322 and S. 734 on specialty medications, and for H. 781 and H. 1305 on medication synchronization to improve adherence. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• There’s additional spending from package accounts, and there was CCA spending on the electrification
• Summation of expected spending.
• We spend about a million dollars a day.
• people have that limit.
• Raising those limits would be fantastic.

Summary: The committee received a detailed staff presentation on Washington State Ferries’ capital needs, current fleet status, and long-range funding outlook. Staff described the current service pattern, ridership recovery since the pandemic, the aging fleet, and the state’s plan to add three new hybrid-electric Olympic-class vessels under the 2025 budget, with delivery expected around 2030-2032. Members also heard that the fleet is operating with no reserve vessel, that preservation time is below the desired level, and that terminal electrification and vessel conversion plans face timing, cost, and procurement risks. Questions focused on ridership trends, biofuel supply, design-risk allocation in vessel contracts, sequencing of terminal electrification with new vessel delivery, and the cost and feasibility of restoring international Sidney service, which would require a SOLAS-certified vessel. Staff then outlined ferry capital funding, saying recent spending and programmed needs are far above regular ferry-specific revenues and that the system relies on a mix of dedicated accounts, transportation package money, federal grants, and transfers. They said the near-term budget is balanced through 2027-29, but the longer-term capital outlook shows a shortfall of roughly $250 million to $300 million per biennium, with broader unmet needs much higher. The presentation estimated costs for future vessels, life extensions, terminal electrification, and additional Jumbo Mark II conversions, and noted that the current enacted plan does not fully fund fleet replacement, full electrification, or life extension of older vessels. Members asked for follow-up information on terminal seismic/environmental issues, contract options for additional vessels, and the timing and cost of alternative vessel designs. The committee then shifted to WSDOT maintenance and preservation. Pascoe Focktich described maintenance operations, including winter response, guardrail repair, facilities, equipment, and the effects of underfunding and inflation. He said most of the maintenance budget is fixed cost and labor, that material prices have risen sharply, and that many facilities are in poor condition with asbestos issues and deferred upkeep. He also noted growing guardrail damage, increasing pavement claims, and the burden of maintaining aging bridges and facilities. Members asked about prior planning for these needs, the role of asbestos, and whether more proactive sequencing could help budget decisions. Troy Suing then presented the highway preservation program, saying WSDOT is in the early stages of critical failure and has stretched preservation dollars as far as possible. He explained the distinction between pavement, bridge, and other highway asset preservation, said the department is largely reactive, and estimated that delaying work can make it three to five times more expensive later. He said about 40% of roadways are currently due or overdue for preservation, bridge conditions are nearing the federal poor-bridge threshold, and the department’s 10-year preservation need is about $8 billion. Members asked about the cost of deferring work, whether the department could do more if funded, how priorities are set, and whether other states face similar problems. Finally, Evan Grimm and Mike Fay briefed the committee on bridge strikes by overheight vehicles. They described recent incidents on I-90 near Cle Elum and SR 410 near White River, the damage and closures caused, and possible countermeasures such as public outreach, improved trip-planning tools, and a pilot warning system with sensors and flashing beacons. Fay explained the state’s financial recovery process for third-party damage, saying WSDOT recovers roughly $20 million per biennium and about 78% to 80% of billed damages, with money going to the motor vehicle fund. Members asked about prevention, insurance recovery, and whether the state uses claim data to inform future design or safety changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• for pupil spending limit of $25,000 for pupil spending limit of $25,000 for students.<00:19:38.880
• A spending cap says you can only spend so much.
• This gives them the flexibility to spend how they want to spend.
• A spending cap cap and a spending cap.
• They have a spending cap. This is not a spending cap.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Medi-Cal items will be much bigger spending items.
• The Medi-Cal items will be much bigger spending items.
• to that original asset limit.
• And now the proposal is to go to that full limit.
• We strongly oppose reinstating a $2,000 asset limit.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health heard presentations on several May Revision proposals, beginning with an overview from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance on the state’s budget condition and the administration’s efforts to reduce out-year deficits through a mix of revenue measures, fund shifts, and program reductions. The chair expressed support for some administration proposals, such as added health IT funding, county administration support, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some immigrants, and additional Covered California subsidy backfill, but also criticized proposed Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other cuts affecting counties, workforce, and rural access. The LAO said the budget still relies heavily on reserves and borrowing and urged more reserves and caution on new commitments. The Department of State Hospitals presented several proposals, including reduced county bed billing authority, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscriptions, reversion of unspent prior-year funds, additional lease revenue authority for the Metro Central Utility Plant replacement, funding for electronic health record implementation, and a shift of workforce development costs to Behavioral Health Services Act funds. The department also described savings and realignments in its IST and CONREP programs, including making the Independent Placement Panel permanent and adjusting funding for jail-based competency treatment and conditional release services. Members questioned the BHSA workforce funding swap, and the administration said it was part of a broader General Fund offset strategy. The Emergency Medical Services Authority requested funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for continued operation of its enterprise systems, and the Department of Managed Health Care sought funds to modernize its complaint system and claims settlement data systems. The largest debate centered on the administration’s proposed use of Behavioral Health Services Act revenues to offset General Fund spending and fund state-directed behavioral health programs. The Department of Finance said the proposal would support population-based prevention, workforce programs, mobile crisis services, and other state-directed uses, while the LAO said it was still reviewing whether the uses comply with Proposition 1 and whether the non-supplement and eligible-use requirements are met. The Commission for Behavioral Health strongly opposed proposed cuts to its Innovation Partnership Fund and community advocacy grants, arguing that both programs are central to community voice, culturally responsive services, and statewide innovation. Commissioners and many public commenters said the cuts would reduce grants to community-based organizations, tribal groups, veterans, LGBTQ communities, youth, and other underserved populations, and that the advocacy program helps communities participate in local planning and access services. The Department of Finance defended the reductions as a way to prioritize direct services and said the programs fit within Proposition 1, but members criticized the proposal as a midstream shift that would weaken community engagement and redirect funds away from prevention and advocacy.