Transcript Highlights:

• And it's tough because we do need to differentiate between services that beneficiaries need and that
• And it's tough because we do need to differentiate between services that beneficiaries need and that
• 11:05.520><c> that</c> differentiate between services that differentiate between services that beneficiaries
• 07.679><c> and</c><01:11:07.920><c> that</c><01:11:08.159><c> the</c><01:11:08.320><c> state</c> beneficiaries
• need and that the state beneficiaries need and that the state should<01:11:08.800><c> pay</c><01:11:

Transcript Highlights:

• And the beneficiaries have been noted earlier, but the HR1 increases the federal deficit by a trillion
• Medi-Cal changes will create confusion for beneficiaries and increase the risk of unnecessary coverage
• automation is not going to obviously solve the structural problems, but do you anticipate many beneficiaries
• In the 35 rural counties served by CMSP, over 124,000 Medi-Cal beneficiaries could lose their health
• The main beneficiaries of food assistance are the elderly and children. That is true.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

• We are the single largest provider of health care services, both for Medi-Cal beneficiaries and for Medicare
• beneficiaries in Santa Clara County.
• These systems provide backbone health care services, obviously to Medi-Cal beneficiaries, as you heard
• We have early warning systems in which we're tracking trends and intervening early so that our beneficiaries
• There is a significant amount of information flowing from counties directly to beneficiaries, but providers

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services heard an overview of the expected California budget and program impacts from H.R. 1, including changes to Medi-Cal and CalFresh eligibility, redeterminations, work requirements, immigration-related coverage rules, retroactive coverage limits, and reductions in federal matching for certain services and provider financing mechanisms. DHCS and CDSS described implementation plans focused on automation, data matching, clearer communications, county training, and outreach, while noting that many federal details are still pending. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also reviewed how H.R. 1 could increase pressure on county indigent care systems, explaining the history of county responsibility under Section 17000, 1991 realignment, and AB 85, and warning that counties may face large increases in uninsured residents seeking care without corresponding funding flexibility. An independent policy expert urged consideration of a more standardized statewide approach to indigent care and raised questions about governance, benefits, and financing. Department witnesses estimated substantial coverage losses and fiscal effects: DHCS projected major Medi-Cal disenrollment tied to work requirements, six-month renewals, narrowed immigrant eligibility, and reduced retroactive coverage, while CDSS estimated large CalFresh benefit losses and a significant increase in administrative workload and payment accuracy pressure. Members questioned how exemptions would work for older adults, people experiencing homelessness, undocumented residents, and cash workers, and asked about the effect on the CalFresh Minimum Nutrition Benefit Pilot and on county administrative funding. Officials said they would use available data and self-attestation where possible, but acknowledged that many cases would require manual screening and that the county workload estimates remain in dispute. They also said the state is still evaluating the impact of H.R. 1 on provider taxes and state-directed payments, which could create additional budget pressure. County representatives from Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Tulare, and San Bernardino described major local consequences if H.R. 1 is implemented as written. They warned of higher uninsured rates, more strain on emergency rooms and public hospitals, increased homelessness and food insecurity, and a likely need to rebuild or expand county indigent care programs that were largely scaled back after the ACA. Counties said they are already freezing hiring, cutting positions, reducing overtime, deferring spending, and launching outreach and coordination efforts with managed care plans and community partners, but argued that these steps are not enough without additional state support. Several counties backed the California County Welfare Directors Association’s request for $373 million in General Fund support for eligibility work and asked for a CalFresh match waiver to soften the new county share of administrative costs; Los Angeles and Santa Clara also emphasized that their local revenue measures would not close the projected gaps. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:14:38.160><c> is</c><00:14:38.639><c> to</c><00:14:39.560><c> the</c><00:14:39.720><c> beneficiaries
• </c> important snap is to the beneficiaries important snap is to the beneficiaries um<00:14:40.839><c
• for</c><00:15:00.440><c> the</c> this is vital not just for the this is vital not just for the beneficiaries
• 15:01.759><c> of</c><00:15:01.880><c> us</c><00:15:02.120><c> that</c><00:15:02.279><c> you</c> beneficiaries
• but for all of us that you beneficiaries but for all of us that you know<00:15:02.600><c> that</c><00

Committee: House Human Services & Homelessness

Summary: The Committee on Human Services and Homelessness heard two SNAP-related bills on March 13, 2025. SB 960 SD1 would appropriate funds to DHS to improve SNAP administration, including additional positions. Testimony from Catholic Charities Hawaii, Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii Food Industry Association, AARP Hawaii, Hawaii Appleseed, and many others strongly supported the measure, emphasizing high food insecurity, the importance of SNAP federal dollars, and the need to reduce delays and improve access. DHS said vacancies and retention are the main barriers, with staffing shortages statewide across processing centers. The department described efforts such as wikiwiki hiring, bringing back retired workers, using interns, and improving call center efficiency, and said it had requested a 5% performance incentive package estimated at about $1.1 million per year, though that request did not make the governor’s budget. Members asked about vacancy counts, staffing distribution, and how the bill would interact with other SNAP funding; DHS said some funding was tied to the new eligibility system and that staffing requests would need to be separate. The committee did not take final action on the bill in the portion heard. The committee then heard SB 961 SD1, which would require DHS to adjust minimum certification periods and participate in the Elderly Simplified Application Project. Supporters, including AARP Hawaii, Catholic Charities Hawaii, Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii Appleseed, Hawaii Food Industry Association, and additional organizations and individuals, said the bill would reduce red tape, help kūpuna, and ease administrative burden. DHS supported the concept but said the current legacy system cannot automate these changes and that any implementation would require manual processing until the new system is in place. DHS and committee members discussed the risk of higher error rates and timeliness problems with manual processing, noting the department had recently been assessed a $1 million penalty for high payment error rates and was already in corrective action for timeliness. Members also discussed the anticipated fall 2026 rollout of the new system and whether the bill should be delayed until then; DHS said it preferred to assess the new system first before pursuing waivers and related changes. The committee then moved on to the next measure after the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><02:06:01.840><c> or</c> co-owner, authorized signatory, or co-owner, authorized signatory, or beneficiary
• <c> a</c><02:06:03.000><c> customer's</c><02:06:03.480><c> account,</c><02:06:04.240><c> or</c> beneficiary
• on a customer's account, or beneficiary on a customer's account, or an<02:06:04.600><c> attorney,</c
• Again, this authority would be overruled by a court order ordering the release of the funds. beneficiary
• designations, or other beneficiary designations, or other authorizations<02:06:40.240><c> that</c><02

Transcript Highlights:

• Roman at 8 is a beneficiary of an inadvertent submission of a false or fraudulent claim to the state.
• </c><00:59:13.599><c> of</c><00:59:13.760><c> an</c> Romanet 8 is a beneficiary of an Romanet 8 is a
• beneficiary of an inadvertent<00:59:14.480><c> submission</c><00:59:14.880><c> of</c><00:59:15.040><c
• </c><00:59:56.799><c> of</c><00:59:56.960><c> an</c> Romanet 9 is the beneficiary of an Romanet 9 is
• the beneficiary of an inadvertent<00:59:57.680><c> payment</c><00:59:57.920><c> or</c><00:59:58.160><

Bills: SF0087 , SF0088 , SF0092

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• The existing program is only for non-beneficiary students enrolled within tribal colleges, and each tribal
• </c><01:32:08.040><c> students</c> only for non-beneficiary students only for non-beneficiary students
• 32:23.520><c> nonb</c> course for up to uh $50,000 for nonb course for up to uh $50,000 for nonb beneficiary
• 24.760><c> so</c><01:32:25.080><c> taking</c><01:32:25.360><c> two</c><01:32:25.600><c> and</c> beneficiary
• students so taking two and beneficiary students so taking two and incorporating<01:32:26.480><c> them

Committee: House Higher Education Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:15:43.199><c> and</c> interest of plan participants and interest of plan participants and beneficiaries
• The bill codifies two beneficiaries.
• Participants and beneficiaries of employer-sponsored retirement plans rely on the expertise of fiduciaries
• Participants and beneficiaries cocktail.
• Participants and beneficiaries of<00:21:16.400><c> employer</c><00:21:16.880><c> sponsored</c><00:21:

Transcript Highlights:

• replacement of a fiduciary to an independent party, someone who is not related or subordinate to the beneficiary
• If a beneficiary had the power to remove and replace a trustee with someone related or subordinate to
• that beneficiary, the beneficiary is effectively exercising a power of appointment, a general power
• If a beneficiary had the power to remove and replace a trustee with someone related or subordinate to
• that beneficiary, the beneficiary is effectively exercising a power of appointment, a general power

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow New Hampshire state-chartered credit unions to choose, by member vote, to compensate their board members. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, does not require compensation, and is intended to align New Hampshire with other states that already permit this. He argued that credit union board service now requires more time and expertise, and that compensation could help attract stronger candidates and improve governance. Representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank testified in support. They said the change would not create salaries, but could cover modest compensation or reimbursements such as daycare, education, cybersecurity, or accounting training. They emphasized that credit unions remain nonprofit and member-driven, that board members must be credit union members and elected by members, and that any compensation decision would be made by the membership at an annual meeting or through the credit union’s voting process. Witnesses also said the bill would help with recruitment and retention, especially as credit union operations have become more complex and digital, and noted that similar authority exists in 16 other states, including Rhode Island. Committee members asked about the historical reason credit unions were excluded, the amount and structure of compensation, whether there would be a cap, and how voting would work. Witnesses said the bill does not set a statutory maximum, but in practice the amount would be disclosed to members and set through the vote; they also described St. Mary’s Bank’s ballot process and said proxy or ballot procedures depend on each credit union’s bylaws. One witness noted that federally chartered credit unions are subject to different limits. After testimony and questions, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25 and then moved on to Senate Bill 26.

Transcript Highlights:

• Program, as well as the SLMB, which is the Specified Low-Income Medicare Beneficiary Program.
• Program, as well as the SLMB, which is the Specified Low-Income Medicare Beneficiary Program. hospitals
• </c><00:40:20.200><c> program</c> qualified Medicare beneficiary program qualified Medicare beneficiary
• A large majority of Medicaid beneficiaries who can work already do, based on the most recent data that
• Sixty-two percent of adult Medicaid beneficiaries across the country who were not enrolled in Medicare

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• No data on the beneficiaries in the fiduciary program to purchase or own firearms.
• No data on the desire<02:44:51.920><c> beneficiaries</c><02:44:52.560><c> in</c><02:44:52.720><c> the
• </c><02:44:52.800><c> fiduciary</c> desire beneficiaries in the fiduciary desire beneficiaries in the
• :01.359><c> failing</c><02:45:01.600><c> to</c> on why beneficiaries are failing to on why beneficiaries
• exist multiple avenues for beneficiaries to appeal VA's decision.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 1940 relates to authorizing beneficiary designation transfers for manufactured homes and

Bills: SB302 , SB1335 , SB1734 , SB1760 , SB1975 , SB2127

Committee: Senate Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:

• Coast Regional Vice President for SEIU Local 1021 on behalf of our members, retirees, and their beneficiaries
• that does not offer an automatic yearly pension cost-of-living adjustment to retirees and their beneficiaries

Summary: The Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee heard and advanced several bills covering workers’ compensation transparency, public pensions, prevailing wage, workplace harassment training, and employee benefits. AB 1048 would require disclosure of the contract justifying reduced workers’ compensation payments to medical providers; supporters said it would improve transparency without changing reimbursement rates, while opponents argued the problem was overstated and existing dispute remedies were sufficient. AB 1601 would give Sonoma County flexibility to target a cost-of-living adjustment for retirees rather than requiring an all-or-nothing COLA; county and union witnesses said retirees have gone without a COLA since 2008 and have lost purchasing power, and the bill passed unanimously. AB 1439 would commission a UC Berkeley study on labor standards in pension-funded real estate and infrastructure projects; labor groups supported it, while local governments, housing, and industry groups opposed it, and it passed on a 4-1 vote after one senator voted no in committee. The committee also heard AB 1697, which would delay implementation of a prior law restricting certain employment debt and pay-to-quit arrangements until 2027; the author said the delay would give employers, including professional sports leagues, time to adjust, while a financial services group sought a further delay to 2028. AB 1803 would require anti-hate speech content in existing workplace harassment training for employers with five or more employees; supporters cited rising antisemitic and other hate incidents and said the bill would help workers recognize and report hate, while opponents raised First Amendment concerns and argued existing harassment law already covers hostile conduct. AB 2120 would extend Los Angeles Unified’s selective certification hiring authority and allow retention of specialized employees in layoffs, and AB 2292 would bar providers from charging administrative fees for disability insurance and paid family leave certification forms; both drew support and were advanced without opposition testimony. AB 1198, the Fair Pay for Construction Workers Act, would require prevailing wage to be based on the time work is performed rather than the date a project is advertised for bid. Labor and contractor supporters said the current rule can lock in outdated wages and underpay workers on long projects and change orders, while cities, counties, and contractor groups warned it would create uncertainty, raise costs, and jeopardize projects funded by fixed grants or bonds. After testimony and questions, the committee voted to send all of the bills forward, with final recorded votes later showing unanimous or near-unanimous approval and several measures placed on call before the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Coast Regional Vice President for SEIU Local 1021 on behalf of our members, retirees, and their beneficiaries
• that does not offer an automatic yearly pension cost-of-living adjustment to retirees and their beneficiaries

Committee: Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Transcript Highlights:

• to page five, key responsibilities of the board: they serve as fiduciaries to the members and beneficiaries
• And then finally, we have nearly 56,500 retirees and beneficiaries.

Committee: House Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement held an informational hearing on the Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System (MOSERS) to review its long-term financial condition, funding status, investment performance, experience study results, and possible legislation. MOSERS staff explained that the plan is a statutorily created defined benefit system covering state employees, several colleges and quasi-governmental entities, with an 11-member board and outside actuarial and investment consultants. They reported the June 30, 2025 valuation showed a funded ratio of 55.4%, assets of about $9.6 billion, liabilities of about $17.4 billion, and a FY27 actuarial employer rate of 27.44%, which the board raised to a 32% minimum contribution rate under a policy adopted in 2023. MOSERS attributed the funding decline over time to several factors: reductions in the assumed investment return from 8.5% to 6.95%, mortality assumption updates, a move from open to closed amortization, and especially weak payroll growth and a shrinking active workforce. Staff said the minimum contribution policy is intended to accelerate UAL paydown and could bring the plan to 80% funded by 2037 rather than 2041, assuming all assumptions are met. The committee also discussed the recent experience study, which kept the investment return assumption at 6.95% and made only modest assumption changes, and a proposed 2026 bill package (SB 1557 and SB 1054) that would automatically refund small balances under $1,000 to terminated non-vested members and add auto-escalation to the deferred compensation plan. A substantial portion of the hearing focused on investment strategy and why MOSERS has lagged some peers. The investment consultant said historical underperformance was driven mainly by asset allocation choices that emphasized a more risk-balanced, diversified portfolio with less public equity exposure than peers during a period when equities performed very strongly. He said the board adopted a more equity-oriented allocation in 2024 and is phasing it in over eight quarters, with recent short-term results improving and the portfolio outperforming its policy benchmark. Members also asked about the effect of inactive members, the rationale for the higher employer contribution, and whether the current board should be held responsible for past decisions; MOSERS officials emphasized that the current board is trying to correct course and that pension funding changes take time. The hearing also touched on ongoing litigation against a former private equity manager, Catalyst Capital, with MOSERS saying it has spent about $20 million in legal fees so far and that the case remains on appeal. The committee took no formal vote and adjourned after the informational presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Wiley, survivor benefits for certain first responders, amount of benefits paid for certain beneficiaries
• Gadbury, Uniform Transfer on Death Security Registration, provides for definitions, securities and beneficiary

Bills: HR42 , HR43 , HR44 , HR45 , HCR22 , HCR23 , HCR24 , HCR25 , HCR26 , HCR27 , HCR28 , HCR29 , HCR30 , HB894 , HB983 , HB984 , HR39 , HR40 , HR41 , HCR19 , HCR20 , HCR21 , HB2 , HB3 , HB15 , HB441 , HB976 , HB977 , HB978 , HB979 , HB980 , HB981 , HB982 , HB129 , HB130 , HB287 , HB489 , HB521 , HB545 , HB553 , HB555 , HB570 , HB670 , HB672 , HB797 , HB854 , HB952 , HB207 , HB300 , HB331 , HB428 , HB464 , HB587 , HB618 , HB629 , HB801 , HB853 , HB891 , HB474 , HB487 , HB503 , HB606 , HB633 , HB707 , HB720 , HB728 , HB733 , HB846 , HB852 , HB856 , HB868 , HB875 , HB112 , HB657 , HB221 , HB149 , HB901 , HB148 , HB354

Summary: The House convened with a quorum, opened with prayer by Father Josh Johnson, and heard several personal privileges recognizing guests and special observances, including Plaquemines Parish Day, TRIO Day visitors from Southern University, the creation of an Italian-American Legislative Caucus tied to St. Joseph’s Day, and a pro-life gala. Members also welcomed Colonel Joseph Masekia back to Louisiana after 30 years of military service. Senate messages reported concurrence in HCR 13, adoption and transmittal of SCR 13 on World Down Syndrome Day, and passage of numerous Senate bills, which were read by title and laid over. The chamber then handled a series of House resolutions and committee reports, including resolutions honoring individuals and events, and committee reports from Criminal Justice, Education, Health and Welfare, House and Governmental Affairs, Insurance, and Natural Resources. Several resolutions were adopted without objection, including measures for Plaquemines Parish Day, the Italian-American Legislative Caucus, and commendations for local honorees. The House also received and referred a number of new House bills, including the capital outlay budget, bond authorization, retirement, municipal, civil law, commerce, appropriations, transportation, and tax-related measures. The House took up and passed multiple bills on the floor, often after technical amendments. These included HB 207 on the Louisiana Auctioneers Licensing Board, HB 300 raising the appraisal threshold for state bank residential loans, HB 428 creating an LSU College World Series champions prestige plate, HB 464 on utility damage reporting, HB 587 creating a PANS/PANDAS specialty plate, HB 618 on Louisiana Economic Development fees, HB 629 for a Crew of Athena plate, HB 801 creating a classic black prestige plate, HB 853 on misleading solicitations by non-government entities, HB 891 consolidating conservation-related prestige plates, HB 112 clarifying child relocation distance measurement, HB 657 naming highways in honor of local figures, and HB 354 naming a bridge for Caleb Easterling. Most passed unanimously or near-unanimously, with HB 801 passing 93-1. The House also adopted amendments and recommitted several bills to Appropriations, and the day ended with announcements of upcoming committee meetings and adjournment until Monday at 2:00 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because the beneficiary of that, most of the money coming, taxes coming, would be the school district
• Because the beneficiary of that, most of the money coming, taxes coming, would be the school district

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Summary: The Special Committee on Property Tax Reform heard public testimony on House Bills 3253 and 3254, presented by Representatives Steinhoff and Jobe. The bills would expand assessor training and continuing education requirements, require physical inspections for large assessment increases on commercial property as well as residential property, allow greater use of technology and remote imagery in assessments, create optional electronic notices and communications for taxpayers, and move toward setting property tax levies by subclass with a small-parcel exception. The bill also included provisions to raise the per-parcel reimbursement floor for assessors, reimburse local governments for revenue losses tied to SB 190 and SB 3, provide payment options during appeals, and require counties to offer installment payment options for property taxes. The sponsors said the proposal was built from bipartisan committee discussions and statewide listening sessions, and they emphasized assessor professionalism, taxpayer flexibility, and fairness in the assessment process. Committee members asked about assessor training, the fiscal note, the parcel reimbursement formula, and how the subclass levy system would work in small jurisdictions. Witnesses from the Missouri Special Districts Association and school administrators generally supported the concepts of better assessor training, more resources, and taxpayer payment flexibility, while also warning about implementation burdens and the fiscal impact of state backfill for SB 190 and SB 3. Testimony also focused on the accuracy of ratio studies and the fairness of moving to subclass-based levies. Some members argued the current system can shift tax burdens unfairly between residential, commercial, and agricultural property owners, while others cautioned that the new structure could create winners and losers depending on local assessment practices. A representative from the State Tax Commission clarified that commissioners do receive training, corrected the parcel reimbursement discussion to note the first 20,000 parcels are treated differently under current law, and said the commission already provides assessor training. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• contribute as much as I believe they should, because I do believe the state is one of the huge beneficiaries
• contribute as much as I believe they should, because I do believe the state is one of the huge beneficiaries

Bills: HB2713 , HB2730 , HB2297 , HB2487 , HB2382 , HB2089 , HB2431 , HB2451 , HB2590 , HB2325 , HB2278 , HB2224 , HB2322

Committee: House Finance

Keywords: private detention facilities, business tax, occupation tax, financial impact, state revenue, aerospace, tax preferences, effectiveness, economic impact, grocery stores, underserved communities, food access, incentives, economic development, insurance tax, state regulation, insurers, taxation, budget impact, excise tax

Transcript Highlights:

• the lower Rio Grande; $10 million to support Indian water rights settlements, so the non-tribal beneficiaries
• Rio Grande 10 million dollars to support Indian water rights settlements so the the non-tribal beneficiaries

Bills: SB193 , SB132 , SB35 , SB145 , HB2 , SB193 , SB132 , SB35 , SB145

Committees: Senate Senate Finance , Senate House Appropriations & Finance

Keywords: SB193, acequia, community ditch, irrigation works construction fund, water infrastructure, ditch infrastructure, irrigation, New Mexico water law, agricultural water, farmers, Rio Grande, acequia association, forest land protection revolving fund, state fund transfer, irrigation projects, SB132, DOIT, Department of Information Technology, software replacement, equipment replacement

Transcript Highlights:

• In order to facilitate the delivery of services to American Indian eligible beneficiaries throughout
• In order to facilitate the delivery of services to the American Indian eligible beneficiaries throughout

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