Transcript Highlights:

• This bill allocates $125 million for emergency services for people losing Medi-Cal.
• This budget bill allocates $213 million for county Medi-Cal workload.
• Thank you. ...million allocation for HAP Round 7. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.
• Also for the adoption of the alternative fee-for-service UIS transition proposal.
• The allocation details are to be worked out.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 109, the Budget Act of 2026, and related discussion of the legislative budget agreement. Committee staff and the Department of Finance described a two-year balanced plan with about $253 billion in General Fund spending, roughly $5.5 billion in higher assumed revenues than the May Revision, and about $36.5 billion in combined reserves. They said the package preserves or expands funding for schools and community colleges, child care, IHSS, Medi-Cal-related county administration, housing and homelessness programs, public hospitals, courthouse construction, and some criminal justice and prison-closure savings, while delaying or modifying several prior health care reductions and some Medi-Cal changes. Much of the member discussion focused on Medi-Cal, H.R. 1, and the impact on low-income and immigrant Californians. Several Democrats argued the budget protects vulnerable residents by delaying some cuts, funding county eligibility work, indigent care, public hospitals, and food banks, and rejecting the Governor’s IHSS cuts and asset-limit proposal. Republicans criticized the budget for assuming future revenues, relying on new taxes, and not doing enough to address the structural deficit or improve accountability. Members also raised concerns and support around homelessness funding, Prop. 36, judgeships and courthouse funding, transit and GGRF allocations, local journalism, Caltrans fleet spending, and a proposed “fair share” revenue measure that was not yet before the committee. Public testimony was largely supportive of the budget’s health and human services provisions, especially the rejection of IHSS cuts and the asset-limit proposal, and the inclusion of funding for child care, sickle cell centers, domestic violence services, trauma recovery centers, distressed hospitals, county eligibility work, and transit programs. Some witnesses representing hospitals and health plans cautioned about the effects of moving certain Medi-Cal populations to fee-for-service and about proposed tax changes affecting health care providers. The chair said revenue trailer bills were still being finalized and would likely come back later in the week; the committee then moved to public comment, with the chair limiting speakers to about one minute each.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we've got $25 million allocated.
• It's where we're dealing with the DJJ supplemental allocation, education enrichment allocation, as well
• as the ESE guaranteed allocation.
• Allocation at $4.4 billion.
• We are increasing that allocation.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, the 50-cent delivery fee, when you talk about a delivery fee, when you talk about a propane
• Chair. fee they aren't collecting that fee at fee they aren't collecting that fee at the<00:37:55.680
• One of the things, too, when we put these fees in, when we put the gas fees, we put the delivery fee
• <00:56:38.079> in the gas fees we put the delivery fee in the gas fees we put the delivery
• <00:56:59.440> on card fee on or 3% credit card fee on card fee on or 3% credit card fee on

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Minnesota House Transportation Finance and Policy Committee met on January 22, 2025, for its first meeting and took up House File 5, introduced by Representative Jim Joy and moved to the Tax Committee. Joy said the bill would make Minnesota more affordable by eliminating the Social Security tax, repealing the motor fuels tax inflator, removing the retail delivery fee, and changing vehicle-related taxes and metro-area sales tax allocations. Committee fiscal staff reviewed the bill’s fiscal effects, including impacts on the general fund, the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, the Transportation Advancement Account, and the split between Metropolitan Council and metropolitan counties. Testimony was largely divided along stakeholder lines. The Minnesota Grocers Association and Minnesota Propane Association supported repealing the retail delivery fee, arguing it creates administrative burdens, requires costly software changes, and raises costs that are passed on to consumers; propane representatives said the fee is especially burdensome because most of their deliveries are exempt but still require tracking and reporting. In contrast, the League of Minnesota Cities, Minnesota Association of Small Cities, Metro Cities, and Minnesota Association of Townships emphasized the need for stable, predictable transportation funding for local roads and said they support the Transportation Advancement Account and related revenue streams, though some were neutral on the exact source of funding. The League and small cities groups said local governments need reliable annual revenue and that past funding has been inconsistent. Committee members asked about who pays the delivery fee, its exemptions, and how much revenue it has generated versus earlier forecasts. Fiscal staff said current estimates for delivery fee revenue are below original projections, and explained the fee’s exemptions and $100 transaction threshold. Representative Joy said his intent was to keep small cities and townships whole as the bill moves forward. No vote was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the bill was heard and referred as noted at the outset.

Transcript Highlights:

• , it requires marketplace facilitators to remit this fee to the Department of Tax and Fee Administration
• Thank you. requires marketplace facilitators to remit this fee to the Department of tax and fee administration
• It's been three years of that allocation, and I just keep hearing from all school districts.
• The $20 million allocation, which the Legislature put in, is to support that.
• It doesn't include... ...million to $750 million in yearly allocations.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the final three-party budget agreement and related trailer bills, with the Department of Finance outlining the major budget bill and omnibus measures. Finance described a package built around balancing the state budget amid economic uncertainty, preserving core health and safety-net programs, and making significant ongoing reductions in some state programs. The budget bill included major items such as shifting $1 billion from the General Fund to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for Cal Fire, funding universal transitional kindergarten, deferring some UC and CSU funding, supporting foster care and homelessness programs, providing Proposition 36 implementation funding, and achieving Medi-Cal savings through changes to benefits and eligibility. The committee also heard that votes on the budget bills were expected later in the week and the following Monday. Finance then walked through the trailer bills, including health, human services, early learning, education, resources, energy, transportation, labor, housing, tax, public safety, courts, general government, cannabis, and energy-related measures. Notable provisions included a Medi-Cal enrollment freeze for certain adults, new premiums and benefit changes for some immigrants, child care COLA changes, education funding for literacy, teacher support, universal meals, and community college student support, as well as resource and climate measures affecting Cal Fire staffing and energy permitting. The housing trailer bill drew the most discussion, with provisions on CEQA streamlining, a vehicle miles traveled mitigation banking program, a renters’ credit trigger, and a six-year moratorium on new residential building standards. Members also discussed a film tax credit expansion, cannabis enforcement funding, a tribal police pilot program, and changes to tax policy, including military retirement income exclusions and wildfire settlement payment exclusions. Committee members largely praised the staff and the budget process, but several raised concerns and asked detailed questions, especially about the housing trailer bill’s new wage standards, tribal consultation provisions, and possible effects on prevailing wage protections. Finance explained that the housing language was intended to set wage floors for market-rate projects receiving CEQA streamlining, with different county-based tiers and a notwithstanding clause preserving existing prevailing wage laws. Members also questioned the size and timing of funding for the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, Clean Cars for All, Proposition 36, and the film tax credit expansion. Other members highlighted support for public safety, veterans’ tax relief, child care providers, housing production, and higher education, while some expressed concern that the budget’s policy changes were being negotiated too quickly or without enough stakeholder input.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also includes one-time allocations of $83.8 million General Fund for the Home Safe Program and $81
• Finally, the bill allocates existing funds totaling $12 million for reparations to implement related
• This bill allocates $1.7 billion.
• , it requires marketplace facilitators to remit this fee to the Department of Tax and Fee Administration
• So this budget proposal only increases the allocation from $330 million to $750 million in yearly allocations

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those allocations are in special language, so we get what is allocated to us.
• There are the professional fees, and I look back over the past There are the professional fees.
• Through fee for service pending that.
• For professional fees for promotional testing.
• All allocated positions. All allocated. We have about 2,300 allocated positions. Okay.

Summary: The committee heard budget presentations and took executive recommendations on several Department of Human Services divisions, including Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health Services; Children and Family Services; County Operations; Developmental Disability Services; and Medical Services, with most divisions showing little or no significant change in total appropriations. Staff and agency witnesses repeatedly explained that many large appropriations are maintained for flexibility, federal matching requirements, or contingency needs, even when actual spending is much lower than the authorized amount. Members also raised concerns about staffing vacancies, long-vacant budgeted positions, and the use of excess appropriation authority across DHS. In Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health, members questioned federal funding levels for mental health and substance abuse grants, the status of senior centers and Meals on Wheels, the Medicaid tobacco settlement program, community alcohol safety grants, and the veterans mental health grant. Agency officials said federal block grants are largely committed, that senior center funding had been delayed by shutdown timing but was now back on track, that the tobacco settlement program had been moved internally within DHS, and that the veterans mental health appropriation remains unfunded. Senators also criticized the adequacy of support for seniors and asked for more detail on how transportation, meal services, and local contributions are funded. In Children and Family Services, members asked about rising appropriation levels, foster care and adoption subsidies, professional fees, the number of children in foster care, and the Children’s Trust Fund. DHS said increases reflect added flexibility for residential treatment, adoption subsidies, and prevention services, while the foster care population has remained fairly steady at about 3,400 children. The Children’s Trust Fund was described as supporting primary prevention programs such as Baby and Me and community schools, and members asked whether it could be administratively combined with other efforts. Questions also covered TANF subgrants, with DHS explaining that it had reduced outside subgrants after discovering over-obligation and was rebuilding reserves. In County Operations, members focused on the summer EBT program, SNAP employment and training, the farmer’s market program, and the state’s TANF reserve position. DHS said summer EBT is still being funded through temporary appropriations because it is a newer program, SNAP employment and training is largely federally funded and may expand under a pending policy change, and TANF reserves were drawn down after prior over-obligation but are now being stabilized. In Developmental Disability Services, members asked about vacancies, human development center staffing, facility construction funds, and the Booneville work program, and DHS said the program has reopened and staffing recruitment continues. In Medical Services, members asked about FMAP, the Our Kids B CHIP program, school-based Medicaid reimbursements, nursing home distress funds, and several large appropriation lines that far exceed actual spending; DHS said these are maintained for claims payment, nursing home receivership contingencies, and other flexibility needs. Each division reviewed was adopted by executive recommendation after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'd have the fee in place.
• Legally, the board approves the fee. Is the fee a legal fee at that moment? Yes. All right, it is.
• So you have a legal fee.
• It is a fee. It's legally a fee. That's correct. At that point in time.
• of their fees.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• these fees were raised? these fees were raised?
• That fee has not changed. We're state. That fee has not changed.
• there one fee of$,450 then? there one fee of$,450 then?
• last time that fee was raised from $5. last time that fee was raised from $5.
• You know, collect a fee.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on SB 63, a bill described by Senator Tim Lang and other supporters as a technical correction to the rooms and meals tax distribution formula. Lang said the bill would clarify that the Division of Travel and Tourism’s 3.15% promotional allocation is taken from gross rooms-and-meals revenue before the 30% municipal reimbursement fund is calculated, which he argued restores the intended 2009/2021 structure and avoids an unintended loss to tourism marketing. Committee members raised questions about whether the bill actually changes section one or instead addresses DRA’s interpretation, and whether the measure could be affected by the budget process or HB 2. Jessica Keeler of Ski New Hampshire testified in strong support, saying the bill would preserve the promotional budget formula that had been in place since 2009 and that the 2019 revision effectively reduced the promotional allocation by placing the municipal share first. She said tourism promotion has helped increase visitation, revenues, and jobs, and warned that without a fix, the joint promotional program and other tourism efforts could be cut in future budgets. She also said the bill would not change the current year’s tourism budget but would matter for future cycles. Mike Summers of the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association also supported SB 63, calling it a correction to the 2021 changes and arguing that state tourism marketing is essential because small businesses cannot reach distant markets on their own. He said the industry has benefited from state promotion, especially after COVID, but is now facing softer occupancy rates, lower Canadian visitation, and financial strain from debt and operating costs. Summers said the industry cannot make up for major tourism budget cuts on its own and urged maintaining or increasing travel and tourism funding. No vote or final action was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• because there's a lot of hidden fees in.
• , or at least negotiate those fees.
• So, that's how we're currently allocated.
• That's net of fees, so that's what we report.
• I would say that the over-allocation is the result of two things.

Transcript Highlights:

• development set aside or uh allocation development set aside or uh allocation that's<00:12:52.880
• , increasing the current electric vehicle fee of $75 annually to $200, and instituting a fee at public
• , increasing the current electric vehicle fee of $75 annually to $200, and instituting a fee at public
• , increasing the current electric vehicle fee of $75 annually to $200, and instituting a fee at public
• , increasing the current electric vehicle fee of $75 annually to $200, and instituting a fee at public

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• If you go to page 22, I mentioned our asset allocation.
• There, on the left, we're showing our actual allocation.
• The amount of fees will depend on what sector the manager is in.
• We are sensitive to fees. Again, our target is that net return. we know fees reduce that.
• Madam Chair, if I could go back to fees, one more comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, evaluate how housing-related taxes and fees are allocated to state county, right?
• So, evaluate how housing-related taxes and fees are allocated to state county, right?
• So, evaluate how housing-related taxes and fees are allocated to state county, right?
• So, evaluate how housing-related taxes and fees are allocated to state county, right?
• state<01:03:21.640> county, and fees are allocated to state county, and fees are allocated

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Prior to the bond, this program, or BHCIP, was originally allocated $2.2 billion.
• So prior to the bond, this program or BCHIP was originally allocated $2.2 billion.
• It's essentially allocating funding, largely allocating funding to seven different regions of the state
• , and that amount of allocation was based on historical funding for realignment many years ago.
• At our last hearing, we heard about one critical component, which was the school fee schedule.

Summary: The hearing opened with remarks from the chair and members about recent federal cuts to public health, mental health, family planning, and Title X funding, with strong concern about the impact on California programs and providers. The committee then turned to the Department of State Hospitals, which presented its 2025-26 budget proposal of $3.4 billion, including new positions, capital improvements, and funding tied to increased patient costs and incompetent-to-stand-trial services. DSH reported major progress in reducing the IST waitlist and wait times, said it had met the court’s 28-day treatment benchmark for those without extenuating circumstances, and described workforce recruitment and retention efforts such as residency programs, fellowships, outreach, and hiring streamlining. Members asked about future IST referral trends, SB 1323’s effect on diversion and community treatment, and workforce lessons in high-cost regions; public comment urged reconsideration of county IST growth cap methodology in light of new criminal justice initiatives. The committee next received an informational overview of Proposition 1 and its changes to behavioral health funding and governance. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that Prop. 1 restructured county MHSA funding buckets, expanded the Commission for Behavioral Health, shifted prevention and early intervention responsibilities, and authorized a $6.4 billion bond, including $4.4 billion for behavioral health facilities through BHCIP. DHCS said it had released guidance for county integrated plans and was receiving extensive public comment. Members focused on BHCIP application requirements, especially letters of support and tribal projects, and raised concerns about whether DHCS’s implementation matched statutory intent. DHCS said it had authority to set application requirements and that tribal entities were treated differently because of sovereignty and funding structure. DHCS then updated the committee on BHCIP, the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program, and related bond implementation. The department said BHCIP had awarded about $1.7 billion across five rounds, with more than 130 projects and 223 distinct facilities funded, and that it was preparing to award the new bond funds after receiving nearly $8 billion in applications. The LAO’s assessment found that more than half of awards served at least 80% Medi-Cal enrollees, but also raised concerns that the regional allocation model could reinforce inequities, that the program had not sufficiently addressed the highest-need regions such as the southern San Joaquin Valley, and that smaller counties and less launch-ready applicants faced barriers. For bridge housing, DHCS said more than $1.1 billion had been awarded, serving over 5,000 people and supporting more than 2,000 operational beds, but the Governor’s budget proposes to eliminate Round 4 funding as the administration weighs other statewide investments and Proposition 1 implementation workload. Public commenters and members urged more accountability, better regional equity, stronger labor and community involvement, and caution about funding for for-profit psychiatric facilities. Finally, the committee heard on the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative. CalHHS and DHCS described CYBHI as a broad prevention- and equity-focused effort with more than 1,300 organizations funded, over $2.1 billion awarded, and multiple work streams spanning schools, community programs, workforce, and digital supports. DHCS highlighted school-based services, the fee schedule rollout, and digital platforms BrightLife Kids and Soluna, which it said are reaching users statewide and providing low-barrier access to coaching and support. Members and public commenters raised concerns about delays in school fee schedule implementation, the large share of funding going to digital tools, the need for more in-person services, and whether the initiative is sufficiently tracking outcomes and equity impacts. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The utilities also cover part of the attorney's fees of the claimants.
• Plaintiff's attorneys' fees are typically, or between 25% and 35% are not unusual.
• over this period in attorney's fees.
• And these legal fees take dollars away from the money survivors have to rebuild.
• And then there's prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and possible reforms to California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the high and growing wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh tradeoffs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The chair emphasized that the SB 254 report is an inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations, and that the Legislature’s role is to evaluate the options publicly. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described severe ongoing displacement, housing insecurity, delayed compensation, and frustration with what they characterized as opaque and unfair compensation structures. They argued for greater transparency, clearer accountability for utilities, stronger oversight of wildfire mitigation spending, and incentives tied to safety performance. They also urged faster survivor payments, but only if they are full, fair, and not financed by shifting more costs to taxpayers or ratepayers. Committee members asked about gaps in the SB 254 report, the meaning of “full” compensation, and how a fast-pay facility might work. The second panel included the California Earthquake Authority, RAND, PG&E, LADWP, Consumer Attorneys of California, and the Public Advocates Office. Tom Welsh of CEA explained the report’s process and the current wildfire fund structure, including that utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims, and prudency reviews can require reimbursement to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon outlined how roughly $38 billion has been paid to survivors, insurers, and public entities since 2017, and noted substantial litigation costs and cost-shifting among stakeholders. Utility representatives supported reforms that preserve financial stability and reduce risk, while consumer and public-interest advocates opposed shifting more costs to ratepayers and stressed accountability, audits, and safety-linked recovery. No votes or formal actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We want to know that the water and sewer tap fees, the sewer fees, the stormwater runoff fees, those
• Impact fees. Wow.
• And so they are charged—it’s called a GRP fee, a groundwater reduction program fee.
• One's a base fee and one's a volumetric fee.
• On the wastewater side, you see your wastewater fee, you see your surface water fee.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• million a year appropriation for no fee million a year appropriation for no fee transaction<00:15
• Line 416 is the no-show exam fees.
• and fees and requirements around that. and fees and requirements around that.
• Um, previously up until cent fee.
• fee.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're putting those into the base allocation.
• How is the base student allocation determined? ...for us.
• So we do increase the base per student allocation.
• Are we using the educational enrichment allocation?
• We've heard a lot about increased permitting fees where your permitting fee is $150.

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several gallery introductions before taking up Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 168, the Tristan Murphy Act, on mental health. Senator Bradley explained that the bill is intended to divert clinically appropriate defendants with mental illness from jail to treatment, create pretrial mental health diversion programs, expand grant uses for mental health and substance abuse reinvestment, require evaluations and treatment follow-up in certain probation and prison settings, add Hillsborough County to a forensic hospital diversion pilot, and establish a Florida Behavioral Health Data Repository. Senators from both parties spoke in support, emphasizing treatment over incarceration, public safety, and the Murphy family’s role in the bill. The Senate passed the bill 37-0 and then recorded 37 co-sponsors. The chamber then moved into presentations on SB 2500, the 2025-26 General Appropriations Act. Chair Hooper said the Senate budget totals $117.4 billion, reduces overall spending from the prior year, maintains reserves, keeps employee health contributions level, and includes major investments in water quality, transportation, education infrastructure, and nearly $1 billion in education capital outlay. Committee chairs outlined their portions of the budget, including increased funding for K-12 schools and scholarships, higher education workforce programs, Medicaid and health services, corrections and courts, transportation and housing, and environmental restoration such as Everglades and water quality projects. Members then asked extensive questions, especially about education funding, school choice, AP/IB and accelerated programs, the Family Empowerment Scholarship, and the FEFP calculations. Senator Burgess repeatedly explained that scholarship funding is being moved “below the line” to improve tracking and that the Senate position is to preserve funding while giving districts more flexibility. Senators also questioned the APD wait list for disability services, opioid settlement spending, arts funding, the My Safe Florida Home condo pilot, and proposed IT and agency restructuring. Several chairs said some issues would be resolved in conference, and no final vote on the budget was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The majority of these resources are being allocated into parts of the state where it is harder and more
• How do we make sure they can afford the monthly fee and what service do they get for that fee?
• How do we make sure they can afford the monthly fee and what service do they get for that fee?
• How do we make sure they can afford the monthly fee and what service do they get for that fee?
• How do we make sure they can afford the monthly fee and what service do they get for that fee?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So we've allocated $15 million for that. I didn't understand.
• So we've allocated $15 million for that.
• For context, New York's renewal fees are $170 every three years.
• This increase in my license fee is part of AB 144.
• This increase in my license fee is part of AB144.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The hearing opened with Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst’s Office remarks on the May Revision, which both described efforts to reduce large out-year operating deficits through a mix of revenue increases, spending reductions, and reserve use. Finance said the May Revision more than halves projected deficits in later years, while LAO stressed that revenues are at unprecedented levels yet the state still faces a significant structural deficit and is drawing down reserves; LAO urged maintaining at least the administration’s level of budget solutions and adding to reserves rather than new ongoing commitments. The chair echoed concern about cuts to vulnerable populations and noted the tension between service reductions and requests for additional administrative positions. The committee then heard a series of California Health and Human Services and HCAI proposals, including additional legal support for CalHHS to respond to federal HR1 changes; a net-zero transfer of positions for a centralized eligibility/data-sharing platform; 988 crisis line implementation funding and continued work with the Trevor Project to train crisis centers to better serve LGBTQ youth; EMS data system maintenance funding; HCAI implementation of AB 1312 hospital charity care screening; SB 660 data exchange framework funding; CalRx biosimilar insulin reappropriation; and a diaper access initiative that would provide free diapers to newborns in participating hospitals and support a future direct-to-consumer purchasing option. Members questioned the diaper program’s universal design, the use of a Public Contract Code exemption, and the selection of Baby2Baby, with the chair expressing concern about optics and the lack of an income threshold. The committee also discussed distressed hospital funding, with HCAI requesting up to $50 million for another round of grants to hospitals in immediate financial distress. HCAI said it receives annual and quarterly financial reports but the data lag limits real-time monitoring, and the LAO recommended stronger program parameters and turnaround plans. Members argued the repeated need for distressed hospital aid reflects a structural problem, not a short-term gap, and raised broader concerns about hospital reimbursement and patient flow. Other items included reverting $19.6 million in unused opioid settlement funds from HCAI to DHCS for General Fund offset, and a Rural Health Transformation Program request to increase HCAI spending authority to cover the full federal award. Later, DMHC presented funding requests to implement PBM licensing and financial review requirements under AB 116, modernize the managed care complaint system, and build an electronic claims settlement data system under AB 3275. The final major discussion focused on the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, which opposed the May Revision’s proposed reduction of its Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and a $6.7 million cut to community advocacy grants. The Commission argued these programs are core to Proposition 1’s goals of statewide innovation and community accountability, while Finance said the proposal is consistent with Proposition 1’s maximum funding levels and reflects a broader effort to prioritize direct services and use unspent prior-year funds; members pressed for more information and questioned whether the cuts would undermine the new behavioral health framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• Around the Bay student allocation, I hope that you could break down for us how the basic student allocation
• Just around the allocation per student.
• When I asked about the scholarship funding allocation, I...
• GUARANTEED ALLOCATION, THAT'S ONE TIME.
• WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT INCREASED PERMITTING FEES WHERE YOUR PERMITTING FEE IS $150; HOWEVER, THERE IS

Bills: SJR4, SJR40, SJR81, SCR37, SCR39, SB22, SB32, SB33, SB36, SB38, SB95, SB209, SB249, SB311, SB326, SB365, SB458, SB609, SB660, SB664, SB693, SB732, SB745, SB760, SB762, SB779, SB783, SB785, SB868, SB871, SB883, SB921, SB955, SB993, SB996, SB1008, SB1057, SB1067, SB1151, SB1171, SB1210, SB1255, SB1265, SB1267, SB1271, SB1307, SB1313, SB1316, SB1318, SB1321, SB1332, SB1365, SB1426, SB1470, SB1484, SB1494, SB1559, SB1592, SB1596, SB1598, SB1637, SB1677, SB1706, SB1758, SB1762, SB1786, SB1809, SB1818, SB1822, SB1841, SB1871, SB1967, SB2064, SB2077, SB2112, SB2148, SB2320, SB2406, SB2407, SJR36, SJR81, SJR50, SJR4, SJR40, SJR27, SCR22, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SB921, SB609, SB660, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB304, SB1023, SB204, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB955, SB957, SB541, SB266, SB1415, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB1062, SB711, SB746, SB1404, SB1448, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB667, SB1059, SB1567, SB310, SB311, SB505, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB1350, SB462, SB827, SB1585, SB1484, SB1273, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1841, SB1008, SB2016, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB860, SB993, SB693, SB1537, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB984, SB619, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1877, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB731, SB268, SB1822, SB1589, SB397, SB1058, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB508, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719, SB287, SB2143, SB1245, SB261, SB1247, SB2406, SB2407, SB1882, SB618, SB38, SB393, SB1371, SB1365, SB2243, SB2226, SB2039, SB1919, SB1895, SB1598, SB1493, SB1810, SB1791, SB1706, SB1644, SB1238, SB783, SB458, SB22, SB651, SB897, SB1809, SB1080, SB745, SB826, SB989, SB1320, SB1437, SB2320, SB2289, SB1171, SB664, SB1637, SB2064, SB868, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB883, SB249, SB1318, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB365, SB1067, SB1786, SB326, SB1401, SB1592, SB1728, SB1265, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1559, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1677, SB95, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB871, SB510, SB33, SB2420, SB1860, SB1541, SB1316, SB1314, SB1313, SB1426, SB1398, SB1869, SB1750, SB1871, SB36, SB855, SB1233, SB760, SB2425, SB2037, SB1758, SB1759, SB2365, SB1924, SB762, SB1271, SB1818, SB605, SB1405, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2148, SB2321, SB1967, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB37, SJR39, SCR1, SCR27, SCR32, SCR42, SCR6, SB2232, SB819, SB2078, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB1030, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB2411, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB34, SB1261, SJR81, SB32, SB458, SB664, SB693, SB868, SB1008, SB1267, SB1307, SB1321, SB1484, SB1637, SB1809, SB1822, SB2064, SB2112, SB2320, SB2406, SB2407, SB609, SB660, SB921, SB779, SB1470, SR388, SB3042, SB440, SB2876, SB3042, SB440, SB2876

Keywords: economic stabilization fund, state finance, constitutional amendment, budget management, financial security, emergency powers, legislative authority, governor powers, disaster management, tax exemption, ad valorem, tangible personal property, income production, SCR 37, Senate Concurrent Resolution, Panama Canal, Texas ports, port infrastructure, maritime trade, shipping lanes