Transcript Highlights:

• And the oath that I took was not, 'I, Carlos Guillermo Smith, swear to test illegal theory here in the
• I would venture to say that I would fare okay in a standardized test of the 90 pages released today,
• I would do better on the test than you would. We're not prepared. Senator Polsky?
• And until you tell me different, because no test has been done, that's where I'm going to stand.
• The state is looking at us to ask us the question: Are we going to continue this testing of the breaking

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We've heard about compactness tests, the Reock ratio, convex hull, PULSE by Popper scores, and these
• And the oath that I took was not, I, Carlos Guillermo Smith, swear to test illegal theory here in the
• I would venture to say that I would fare okay in a standardized test of the 90 pages released today,
• I would do better on the test than you would. We're not prepared. Senator Polsky?
• And until you tell me different, because no test has been done, that's where I'm going to stand.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session with an opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the special order calendar to consider congressional redistricting legislation, beginning with Senate Bill 8D and then substituting the identical House Bill 1D. The bill would establish Florida’s congressional districts. Senator Gaetz, presenting the measure, said the Governor had proposed the map to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts, and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible and has occurred before in Florida and other states. He repeatedly said the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal, but that the Governor had the prerogative to propose it. The floor debate focused heavily on the legality and timing of the map, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Louisiana redistricting decision was announced during the session. Several senators, including Rouson, Sharief, Smith, Polsky, Arrington, Bracy Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and Berman, questioned whether the map complied with the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and equal protection principles. They raised concerns about the short notice, lack of statewide public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony from the Governor’s representatives, the claimed severability of the Fair Districts Amendment, and the impact on minority communities and communities of interest. Gaetz generally declined to offer legal opinions, saying those issues would ultimately be for the courts, but he relayed the Governor’s position that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional and that the proposed map is race-neutral and compact. Members also debated whether the map’s population data and compactness scores justified the district lines, with critics arguing that the plan cracked and split communities in places such as Central Florida, Tampa Bay, and South Florida. Gaetz said the Governor’s office relied on 2020 census data plus updated population estimates from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and the American Community Survey, and that the mapmaker said he drew the map himself without outside consultants. After questions concluded, the Senate adopted a motion to substitute HB 1D for SB 8D, read the bill a third time, and proceeded to debate the House bill. The transcript ends during debate, with no final vote on passage shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• But what I see here is a wonderful opportunity to see and test the transition with these schools and
• We might know that because they test positive for drugs at the time that the baby is born.
• The baby might test positive for drugs. Then somebody needs to check in on the situation.
• We might know that because they test positive for drugs at the time that the baby is born.
• The baby might test positive for drugs. Then somebody needs to check in on the situation.

Summary: The House convened, approved the journal, and received messages from the Governor and Senate on bills signed, enrolled, and transmitted. Several committee reports were read, including bills and resolutions advanced to second or third reading, and House Resolution 28 and multiple appropriations and policy bills were introduced and referred. The House also recessed and later resumed business, continuing with messages and committee reports before moving into floor action on selected bills. A major floor debate centered on House Bill 725, which would have allowed cities to join the Idaho State Health Insurance Pool. Supporters argued it would give cities access to a larger, more stable risk pool, lower premiums, and reduce property tax pressure, while opponents warned it could create adverse selection, raise costs for state employees, and expand state administrative burdens. After extended debate, the House rejected HB 725 by a vote of 30-40 and held it at the Chief Clerk’s office. The House then passed House Bill 660, a measure requiring local law enforcement to collect and report twice-yearly counts of arrested individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. Supporters said it was a limited reporting requirement aimed at understanding costs to taxpayers, while opponents raised concerns about unclear procedures, added burdens on law enforcement, and questionable fiscal assumptions. The bill passed 40-30 and was transmitted to the Senate. The House also took up several budget enhancement bills under suspended rules. House Bills 905, 906, 907, 908, and 909 all passed, covering enhancements for the State Board of Education, community colleges, career technical education, the Military Division, and the Secretary of State. Debate on these bills focused on whether the additions were true restorations or budget growth, the use of one-time funds and federal grants, and concerns about higher education priorities and fiscal restraint.

Transcript Highlights:

• But what I see here is a wonderful opportunity to see and test the transition with these schools and
• We might know that because they test positive for drugs at the time that the baby is born.
• The baby might test positive for drugs. Then somebody needs to check in on the situation.
• We might know that because they test positive for drugs at the time that the baby is born.
• The baby might test positive for drugs. Then somebody needs to check in on the situation.

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• clear legislation, particularly requirements on products to be listed on the nationally recognized testing
• Clear legislation requiring products to be listed on a nationally recognized testing laboratory standard
• clear legislation, particularly requirements on products to be listed on the nationally recognized testing
• standard that we honestly view as a pretty conservative standard, but they set it after really rigorous testing
• Conservative standard, but they set it after really rigorous testing, and it sets requirements that will

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The increases are offset by decreases to remove one-time funding for the Phenomune test kits, decreases
• This is due to the removal of the nonrecurring Phenomune pilot testing kits and the transfer of the Office
• It's going to test my knowledge here.
• You failed a test. Your boyfriend broke up with you.
• And so that's a partnership of testing and inspectors. In the state.

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So one of the things we were asked to do in that resolution was to test or assess the implementation
• of those relevant laws to female incarceration, and one thing that would give us an idea of how to test
• Twenty-four jails did not automatically test for pregnancy.
• There's a lot of times what happens today is, When I'll take substance use as an example, when mom tests
• you're, you know, and we've had conversations here where a woman delivering was supposed to have a drug test

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The committee held its inaugural meeting on March 5, 2026, with opening remarks from Chair Freiberg and Vice Chair Marcelle describing the panel’s purpose as studying issues affecting women and children, including health, education, economic opportunity, safety, and criminal justice. After roll call, the chair noted the meeting was informational only and not requiring a quorum. The committee then heard presentations and asked questions on human trafficking and child exploitation, followed by an audit report on the treatment and care of incarcerated women. Mary Kate Andrepont of the Governor’s Office of Human Trafficking Prevention presented 2025 data showing 2,963 victims identified, 15,437 service instances, and 33% of victims remaining in services at least nine months. She said 93% of reported victims were sex trafficking victims, most were under 18, and 62 of 64 parishes had trafficking reports. She explained familial trafficking, described screening and coordinated response procedures, and highlighted new tools and outreach campaigns. She also discussed two priority bills: HB 321 by Rep. LaFleur, which would create immunity from prostitution offenses for child trafficking victims under Safe Harbor principles, and SB 83 by Sen. Edmonds, which would require school board trafficking policies and expand victim advocacy services to labor trafficking victims and survivors up to age 21. Committee members asked about reporting procedures, data trends, service gaps, and the reach of the screening tools. Chris Masters of the Attorney General’s office then presented on online child exploitation and child sexual abuse material through the Louisiana ICAC Task Force. He reported 31,203 tips in 2025, 545 arrests, more than 80 children identified or rescued, over 1,500 search warrants, and more than 100 community presentations. He said the task force is expanding statewide, including an Orleans Metro unit, and asked for more analysts and outreach personnel to handle a projected rise in cyber tips. Members asked about community presentations, the scope of the investigations, sex offender social media restrictions, interstate cases, sentencing, and how online enticement and live abuse are prosecuted. The discussion emphasized parental monitoring, school outreach, and coordination with federal partners. The final item introduced an audit report on the treatment and care of incarcerated females. Legislative Auditor staff said the review, requested by a 2023 resolution, found that Louisiana’s jails and guidance documents had not fully addressed the key laws and standards governing women’s incarceration, including restraint use during pregnancy and childbirth, health care, hygiene, dignity, and reentry. They noted that local jails still house a majority of incarcerated women despite the opening of a new state facility, and that several facilities had confirmed prohibited restraint use or failed to provide required written advisements. The staff said the report included legislative considerations for improving compliance and care.

Transcript Highlights:

• We offer pregnancy tests and ultrasounds and post-delivery care, parenting classes, parenting resources
• These services include gynecological care, pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, support for struggling mothers
• ...pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, support for struggling mothers such as diapers, wipes, and also we
• So this bill will address working along with ADEQ and addressing those issues to test soil and water
• and conduct home testing, and to partner with tribal...

Bills: HB2211 , HB2229 , HB2389 , HB2403 , HB2445 , HB2502 , HB2620 , HB2813 , HB2872 , HB2889 , HB2960 , HB4028 , HCR2007

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: contractors, subcontractors, resident preference, public contracts, materials supply, Arizona Revised Statutes, local businesses, pregnancy resource center, pregnancy center, crisis pregnancy center, DHS, Arizona Department of Health Services, state appropriation, general fund, nonprofit grant, women's health, maternal health, reproductive health, abortion funding, pro-life

Transcript Highlights:

• Test one, two, test one. Position one test. Test one, two. Position two. Position two test.
• We're testing every mic now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Summary: The joint Assembly Higher Education and Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the future of the California State University system, with opening remarks emphasizing CSU’s major role in California’s economy, workforce, and degree production. Chairs and members said the hearing was intended to inform 2026 budget decisions and to examine three main issues: declining enrollment at some campuses, cost controls and possible consolidation, and oversight of recent state investments at campuses such as Humboldt and Sonoma. The meeting was briefly delayed by microphone and sound problems before reconvening. The first panel featured CSU Academic Senate Chair Dr. Elizabeth Boyd and Cal State Student Association Vice President Katie Karam. Boyd urged the Legislature to protect academic freedom, strengthen faculty governance, provide stable ongoing funding, end unfunded mandates, support student food and housing security, fund flexible course schedules, improve transfer systems such as ASSIST, avoid over-centralizing academic programs, protect immigrant students, and expand intersegmental collaboration. Karam said students are feeling the effects of budget shortfalls through fewer course sections, reduced advising and services, longer time to degree, and tuition pressure, and she called for transparency, meaningful student involvement in budget decisions, and sustained state investment rather than cuts that harm the student experience. The second panel covered enrollment management and included CSU Chancellor’s Office and campus administrators from Chico State, Cal State L.A., and San Diego State. Dr. Delcy Perez said CSU Forward and the new systemwide enrollment plan are aimed at expanding access, aligning programs with workforce needs, and increasing resident enrollment; she reported systemwide enrollment gains and strong application numbers, including a direct-admissions pilot that expanded from Riverside to more campuses. Campus representatives described local recruitment and retention strategies, including early outreach to high school students, community college partnerships, guaranteed admission programs, and expanded advising and student support. San Diego State highlighted record enrollment and high demand, while Cal State L.A. described efforts to recover from impaction and rebuild enrollment. Members pressed CSU officials on the accuracy of enrollment data, the gap between funded targets and actual enrollment, and the system’s reallocation formula. CSU staff explained that campuses below target will see a 5% ongoing reallocation beginning in 2026-27, with one-time reserve funding also being directed to campuses that can grow, and that fiscal health reviews have been completed for 21 of 22 campuses. Legislators also asked about turnaround plans required by the budget act; CSU said those plans are being developed and will be shared in the spring after campus consultation. No formal votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Testing, okay. Okay, which one's hot mic? Testing. Test, yeah. Are we ready?
• in the affordable housing space have been advocating for for many years is a reduction of this 50% test
• in the affordable housing space have been advocating for for many years is a reduction of this 50% test
• And so you can imagine with the 25% test now, this could be as much as 30,000 units a year instead of

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• Pump testing, for example, they need to be done, and sometimes there are delays on both sides to get
• Pump testing, for example, they need to be done, and sometimes there are delays on both sides to get
• Pump testing, for example, they need to be done, and sometimes there are delays on both sides to get
• Pump testing, for example, they need to be done, and sometimes there are delays on both sides to get
• Pump testing, for example, they need to be done, and sometimes there are delays on both sides to get

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• list of how your student does in this list of how your student does in different<00:22:55.120><c> testing
• <c> and</c><00:22:56.240><c> what</c><00:22:56.480><c> we</c><00:22:56.640><c> were</c> different testing
• Um and what we were different testing.
• empower parents to be able to sit down with the school and say, "My kid is not doing well on the MCA test
• MCA test. They're not doing well in reading. They're not doing well in math.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• members who may be unfamiliar with registered apprenticeship, registered apprenticeship is a time-tested
• Superintendent Dow, if you'd come up to test stand, please.
• Superintendent Dow, if you'd come up to test stand, please.
• 00:42:25.839><c> well</c><00:42:26.599><c> um</c><00:42:26.760><c> I</c><00:42:26.839><c> guess</c> test
• fires to answer as well um I guess test fires to answer as well um I guess have<00:42:27.319><c> the

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're not, you know, running DNA testing to confirm that it is that person.
• So we're not, you know, running DNA testing to confirm that it is that person.
• So we're not, you know, running DNA testing to confirm that it is that person.
• So we're not, you know, running DNA testing to confirm that it is that person.
• So we're not, you know, running DNA testing to confirm that it is that person.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 146, which would remove the requirement that a medical examiner physically view a body before issuing a cremation certificate. The prime sponsor, Sen. Suprentice, and Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Jenny Duval explained that the bill would not change the death certificate process or the existing waiting period before cremation; it would only eliminate the in-person viewing step. They said the current review of death certificates already catches the vast majority of cases that should be reported to the medical examiner, and that the physical view changes outcomes in less than 1% of cremation cases. The witnesses emphasized that the bill is intended to improve efficiency and reduce delays for families and funeral homes, while freeing deputy medical examiners to focus on homicides, suicides, accidents, and unexpected natural deaths. Dr. Duval cited an example where review of a death certificate, not the body, uncovered a long-ago strangulation-related homicide, arguing that the key safeguard is review of records and cause of death, not the physical view. She also said the change would save travel time and some costs for the department. Committee members asked about how death certificates list primary and contributing causes of death, whether the low percentage of findings means the current process has a deterrent effect, why cremation is treated differently from burial, and whether identification concerns are adequately addressed. The sponsors responded that identification is handled earlier by hospitals, families, and funeral directors, and that any questionable identification would already fall under medical examiner jurisdiction. They also said the bill would not alter the two-day cremation delay or other existing safeguards. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• F I appreciate it Beth do do I test F I appreciate it Beth do do I pronounce<02:27:22.600><c> it</c>
• John Turko said there's only one test I know of to determine gender identity, and that is to ask that
• Okay, so two things when you get into the compelling state interest test: you have to do two things.
• But the second thing you have to do when you get into the compelling state interest test is: anytime
• nobody was able to pass until tested nobody was able to pass until 2021<03:07:47.560><c> there</c><03

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and it certainly needs to be updated on a regular basis to ensure that it uses current terms and testing
• , that it takes To ensure that it uses current terms and testing, that it takes cultural differences
• but there are tools out there that other states have been using for some time and that have been tested
• Apart from that, my daughter recently had genetic testing.
• Test it out with individuals in the system.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held an informational hearing on several Department of Developmental Services proposals, with no votes taken. The first item focused on equitable access to intake and services for regional center clients, including standardizing eligibility assessments and modernizing the strengths-and-needs evaluation used to inform individual program plans. DDS said the changes would create a more consistent, equitable, and evidence-based process statewide, while the LAO explained the proposals as a response to disparities and inconsistent regional center practices. Advocates and regional center representatives were divided: Disability Rights California, the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, and some providers supported modernization but urged clearer safeguards, more community co-design, and stronger legislative review; others, including some regional center leaders and family advocates, warned against replacing the CEDER too quickly and stressed the need to preserve the person-centered IPP process. Committee members emphasized fair process, fidelity, and the need for a validated tool, while also noting that the proposals would not change eligibility definitions or replace IPPs. The second major item addressed state-operated transitional and rehabilitative services, including proposed time limits for stays at Porterville Developmental Center and Canyon Springs, plus the merger of the Community Placement Program and Community Resource Development Program. DDS argued that people should not remain in locked facilities for years and that the proposal would create urgency, clearer transition planning, a right of return, and a more efficient single program for community resource development. Supporters, including Disability Rights California, the State Council, the Public Defenders Association, and some service providers, said the proposals align with Olmstead and the Lanterman Act, reduce overreliance on institutions, and should be paired with stronger mental health supports, oversight, and notice to counsel. Opponents, including a district attorney representative, argued that a blanket 24-month limit could endanger public safety and that some individuals require longer, case-by-case commitments. Committee members said they wanted a more comprehensive plan showing that community placements and supports will be ready before people are moved, and they questioned whether an arbitrary timeline could work for such a complex population. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly stressed that any implementation must be fair, transparent, and backed by valid tools, adequate community capacity, and public input. DDS said both sets of proposals would require legislative approval and that the department is still open to changes in trailer bill language and further stakeholder consultation. The hearing ended with the committee indicating it would continue reviewing the proposals and hear public comment, but no formal action was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Here we have a clear standard enacted by statute with a three-pronged test.
• That's our best distillation of the Geiger test.
• Here we have a clear standard enacted by statute with a three-pronged test.
• That's our best distillation of the Geiger test.
• Keep testing my block. All right, we're going to move to item 25, SB 1401.

Summary: The committee heard several public safety bills and took testimony on each, with members often noting amendments and continuing negotiations. SB 1009 by Senator Becker would require juvenile courts to find that less restrictive alternatives are unsuitable before ordering detention, and would require periodic review of continued detention and consideration of alternatives at disposition. Supporters argued it would reduce unnecessary youth detention and improve transparency; probation, judges, and police groups opposed it as an undue limit on judicial discretion and potentially unsafe in serious cases. The chair said he would recommend an aye with amendments, but the bill was held pending quorum and later remained on call. SB 1130 by Senator Gomez Reyes would update privacy law for wearable recording devices such as smart glasses, requiring consent before recording in places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy and banning devices or accessories designed to defeat recording indicators. Supporters said the bill addresses secret recording and invasive surveillance; opponents from tech and hospitality groups sought clarification to avoid unintended liability for businesses and exempt workplace communication devices. Members discussed those exemptions, and the chair recommended an aye, but the measure also remained on call. Senator Blake Spear presented SB 99, which would let courts consider military protective orders in domestic violence proceedings and require better communication between civilian law enforcement and military authorities. Supporters from the Department of Defense, local officials, and military representatives said it would close protection gaps for military families; the ACLU opposed it on due process grounds because MPOs are issued without judicial process. The chair and author emphasized that the bill only allows consideration of MPOs and does not require civilian enforcement of them. The bill passed out on a vote, though it remained on call for additional members. The committee also heard SB 937 by Senator Gonzalez, restricting flashbang use for crowd control and banning flashbangs and explosive breaching charges in immigration enforcement, and SB 1022, creating a statewide anti-trafficking task force. SB 937 drew support from civil rights and community groups and opposition from police and sheriffs over the use-of-force standard and limits on tactics; it passed out on a vote but remained on call. SB 1022 was supported by survivor and faith groups and opposed by public defenders and sex worker advocates who raised concerns about racial disparities and enforcement harms; it also passed out on a vote. Later, SB 1395, extending criminal protective orders for certain felony sex offenses against minors up to 20 years, and SB 1230, increasing penalties for repeat illegal dumping, were both heard with mixed testimony and were held on call after committee votes. The committee also adopted a consent calendar and several bills were moved forward with amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have continued to We are making incremental changes and improvements as far as our test scores go.
• Test. Okay. Our committee members, thanks again for having us.
• What are the metrics to test? To your question about accountability. We require information.
• Wondering where you're—who's doing the testing, where the monitoring sites are, and then how soon you
• He said tests showed that he had West Nile virus, for which the doctors told his family there was no

Committee: House House Government, Elections & Indian Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• today's needs, but also with an eye towards new aviation technology and innovation currently being tested
• innovation aviation technology and innovation currently<00:26:41.680><c> being</c><00:26:41.920><c> tested
• </c> currently being tested. currently being tested.
• We actually have found a pilot program in federal government where they would test this to cancel the
• We just got it turned on. they would test this to cancel the noise they would test this to cancel the

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The task force was called to order with a quorum present, and Commissioner Mark Carter of the Kentucky Department of Aviation gave the first presentation. He outlined the state’s airport system, noting 58 public-use airports, the department’s small staff, and its funding structure through a jet fuel tax that generates about $23 million annually, leaving roughly $15 million for airport investment after required deductions. Carter highlighted recent projects at airports including Bardstown, Madisonville, Central Kentucky Regional, Paducah, Sparta, Danville, and Henderson, and said the department has also expanded data collection on airport activity, hangars, schools, and training programs. He emphasized that the department recently completed the first statewide economic impact study of general aviation airports and is developing a five-year airport needs plan. Carter said several things are working well, including stronger communication with airports, the public, the legislature, and especially the FAA’s Memphis district office, which now involves the state more in project selection. He said the department is reasonably staffed overall, but identified workforce development and advanced air mobility as major gaps. In response to questions from Senator Nunn and Representative York, he said he did not have specific workforce shortage numbers on hand, but cited Boeing reports showing large national and global shortages of pilots and mechanics, and explained that instructor shortages and low wages limit training capacity. He also said air traffic control is an FAA function, though EKU has shown interest in developing a training program. Carter identified several needs for improvement: more workforce investment, more aviation education in high schools, more scholarships for pilot and mechanic training, more attention to advanced air mobility, and more frequent, institutionalized data collection. He also pointed to major pending capital needs at airports such as Elizabethtown, Owensboro, Harlan, Leitchfield-Grayson County, and Whitesburg-Letcher County, all of which would require FAA and state support. He urged airports to do a better job marketing their economic value and said the state should continue updating aviation studies so lawmakers have current information for policy decisions. The task force then heard from Lexington Blue Grass Airport Director Eric Frankl, who welcomed the new CVG director and thanked the legislature for creating the task force and supporting aviation infrastructure. Frankl said Blue Grass Airport has rebounded from the pandemic and now exceeds pre-pandemic passenger levels, while serving a mix of private aviation, pilot training, corporate aviation, and commercial airline activity. He described ongoing terminal-area planning, parking technology upgrades, and a major parking lot expansion expected to finish by early spring 2026, and said the airport is planning for future technologies such as vertiports and electric aerial vehicles. Frankl estimated that a broader terminal modernization program will cost roughly $500 million to $700 million over the next 5 to 10 years and said the airport needs continued state support to close funding gaps and remain competitive with other states investing in aviation.

Transcript Highlights:

• countable income below 138% of the federal poverty level to qualify for Medi-Cal, but again, the asset test
• cost for seniors up to 138% of the federal poverty level, as well as the elimination of the asset test
• As well as the elimination of the asset test that was previously used to determine Medi-Cal eligibility
• Obviously, I was so glad to see the asset test being eliminated.
• The greatest test of whether a society is doing its job correctly is how it's treating young people and

Summary: The joint Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused first on long-term services and supports for older adults, especially the “forgotten/overlooked middle” who earn too much for Medi-Cal but cannot afford private long-term care. Administration witnesses from DHCS, the Department of Aging, and Social Services described Medicare’s limited long-term care coverage, Medi-Cal’s role, the elimination of the Medi-Cal asset test, and ongoing state studies and listening sessions on financing options. Testimony from advocates and researchers emphasized rising homelessness among older adults, the need for better navigation and coordination across health, aging, housing, and social service systems, and short-term policy steps such as share-of-cost reform, housing stability supports, and protecting home- and community-based services. Members highlighted the need for a coordinated, no-wrong-door approach and asked for the most impactful budget investments to address affordability and homelessness risk. The second major topic was the Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS) program. CDA reported that CBAS helps participants remain in the community, that 304 centers operate statewide serving about 42,000 people, and that demand is stable but access gaps remain in some regions. DHCS explained that a 2024 rate increase authorized by SB 159 became inoperative after Proposition 35, and that a separate 10% rate change on the fee schedule was the result of a DHCS system error; the department said it would not require recoupment, though managed care plans may act under their contracts. CBAS providers and advocates warned that reimbursement rates have not kept pace with costs, that several centers have closed, and that clawbacks could trigger more closures. They requested $74.8 million ongoing General Fund to close part of the rate gap and preserve the program, while members expressed concern about closures and the cost savings of keeping people out of more expensive institutional care. The hearing then moved to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) and statewide collective bargaining. CDSS reviewed provider recruitment and retention efforts, including electronic timesheets, direct deposit, and the now-completed IHSS Career Pathways program, which trained more than 59,000 providers. CDSS also summarized its AB 102 workgroup report on statewide versus regional bargaining, saying the final report would be sent to the Legislature soon and that statewide bargaining appeared more viable than regional bargaining, though it would require clear statutory scope and major fiscal changes. The department estimated that each $1 per hour statewide wage increase would cost at least $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion annually. Labor advocates argued that IHSS wages, benefits, and training are too inconsistent across counties and called for statewide bargaining, consumer participation, and ongoing state funding. County representatives supported stronger wages but cautioned that counties need protection from new costs and administrative burdens, and consumer advocates warned that moving bargaining to the state could weaken local consumer control and the program’s consumer-driven structure.