Transcript Highlights:

• The Governor's budget estimates budget-year 2025-26 auction revenues of approximately $4.2 billion.
• So the Governor's budget proposes 2025-26 budget-year discretionary expenditures of $1.8 billion, which
• of the 2024 budget.
• We very much appreciate the AB 617 funding provided in the Governor's budget for air districts' implementation
• for the ZEV budget package.

Summary: The committee hearing focused heavily on CARB’s broad trailer bill request for regulatory fee authority. Finance and CARB argued the proposal would let CARB develop fees to recover reasonable costs for implementing and enforcing regulations, while the LAO recommended rejection because the authority was too broad, could apply to an entire division of code, and would delegate core legislative taxing/fee-setting power without enough guardrails. Members from both parties raised concerns about the breadth of the authority, accountability, affordability impacts, and whether the Legislature would be put in an up-or-down position after CARB had already developed regulations. CARB responded that fees would still go through a budget change proposal and legislative approval before collection, and cited existing examples such as transport refrigeration units and commercial harborcraft fees. The committee then reviewed CARB’s request for permanent resources to implement SB 905 on carbon capture, utilization, storage, and carbon dioxide removal. CARB said the Legislature had previously authorized limited-term positions and funding, but it had struggled to recruit and retain staff with specialized regulatory and technical expertise, and that the work had included pre-rulemaking contracts, technology review, and permit-related preparation. Members questioned the pace of work, the use of limited-term positions, and whether additional permitting authority would be needed. CARB said it hoped to begin rulemaking later in the year if permanent resources were approved. Members also discussed the cap-and-trade spending plan, noting lower-than-expected auction revenues but higher interest earnings, and the need to monitor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and possible May Revision changes. The committee then heard overviews of the zero-emission vehicle package, the Community Air Protection Program, demand-side grid support, and e-bike incentives. CARB described ongoing investments in community-based transportation equity, drayage trucks, harbor craft, and other clean technology demonstrations, while members pressed on affordability, program duplication, and whether enough funding was being directed to incentive programs. No formal votes were taken during the portion provided, and the chair repeatedly indicated that the hearing was intended to surface concerns for later budget negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Budget.
• cycle versus the current budget cycle, which... ...budget cycle versus the current budget cycle, which
• It's within, so you can stay within your budget, approved budget. Yes, correct.
• My question is, what is the budgeted amount total? ...budgeted amount total?
• We appreciate the inclusion of Workforce Pell implementation funding in the Governor's budget, but we

Summary: The committee heard an overview of the May Revision’s Proposition 98 changes for K-12 and community colleges. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, full payment of the prior settle-up, and larger deposits into the school rainy-day fund. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF updates were reasonable, but urged caution about the settle-up approach and recommended using more of the available funding to protect ongoing programs and build budget resilience. Members focused heavily on the size of the proposed $3.9 billion settle-up, the $10.3 billion reserve deposit, declining K-12 enrollment, and how much of the new funding should be ongoing versus one-time. The committee then reviewed the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described the May Revision’s higher SCFF COLA, additional funding for enrollment growth, a student support block grant, apprenticeship adjustments, and continued funding for deferred maintenance, Calbright, Common Cloud, and credit for prior learning. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended prioritizing the statutory COLA increase, noted that more than half of districts are already above current-year growth targets, and said the new adult learner demonstration project should be rejected because districts already have tools to support similar services. Members also discussed a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall, which Finance said was discovered too late for the May Revision and would need to be addressed later. Finally, the committee took up the proposed implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the California Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career to build eligibility and data systems, along with trailer bill changes to set up state approval processes. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, that California lacks the needed infrastructure, and that the state will need emergency regulations, data linkages, and ongoing funding beyond the one-time proposal. The LAO agreed that some initial funding is needed but warned that the amounts and ongoing costs remain uncertain and that the Legislature should carefully draft the trailer bill language. Members asked about timing, other states’ actions, and how the state would ensure the program is ready for students and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's the one we're requesting the provisional language to allow us to adjust our budget in the budget
• The May Revision includes budget bill language.
• So the way we implement it into the budget is that the Student Aid Commission gives us their estimates
• And... 2025 Budget Act until June 30, 2027.
• to submit a joint Legislative Budget Committee implementation plan by October 1 of this year.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard May Revision proposals covering higher education, including the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the University of California, California Community Colleges, the California Student Aid Commission, UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and trailer bill reporting changes. For the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the administration proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan taken to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to adjust for a pending legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about an interest-free loan under Proposition 26. Senators asked about whether the $10 million would cover the litigation and about the estimated $245,000 in interest savings. For UC, the May Revision maintained the Governor’s ongoing support and included budget language requiring campuses to grow by 2,968 California undergraduates in 2026-27. UC also sought $1.5 million in one-time General Fund support for the First Star foster youth program. UC described strong outcomes for the UCLA program, while the LAO recommended rejecting the new spending because UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and because the need for new state funding was not clear. Senators debated whether the proposal duplicated existing services and discussed the program’s reported college-going and completion rates. The committee also heard a request for $1 million ongoing General Fund for UC College of the Law, San Francisco, to maintain campus safety services; the college described its shared-campus model and public-interest mission, while the LAO noted the college was also raising tuition and that the proposal would maintain, rather than expand, current security spending. The committee then reviewed community college proposals. Finance outlined a larger May Revision package centered on a 4.31% SCFF COLA, enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, a one-time Adult Learner Demonstration Project allocation, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time items. The Chancellor’s Office supported the package but asked for more enrollment growth funding, a higher growth rate, and additional policy changes. The LAO recommended at least funding the statutory 2.87% COLA, then considering whether to redirect remaining funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time priorities; it recommended rejecting the Adult Learner Demonstration Project. Senators questioned the use of the discretionary COLA to cover paid pregnancy disability leave, the impact on hold harmless and basic aid districts, and whether the state should instead create a separate categorical. The Chancellor’s Office and Finance said the COLA approach was intended to provide flexibility, though Finance said it was open to further discussion about districts that would not receive direct funding. For student aid, Finance described May Revision changes to Cal Grant and the Middle Class Scholarship, including a one-time reduction tied to lower estimated costs and a later true-up, as well as proposals for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. CSAC supported the financial aid investments but urged more time and clearer implementation planning for Workforce Pell, noting the need for state approval processes, data linkages, and likely ongoing administrative workload. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding and cautioned that the Workforce Pell trailer bill and one-time funding were premature given the new federal rules and unclear workload. Senators also raised concerns about the Middle Class Scholarship reduction, the need to support students facing higher living costs, and the decline in CADA/DREAM Act applications, with CSAC saying the drop did not reflect reduced need and that outreach should be strengthened. The final item was a set of technical trailer bill changes to shift some UC, CSU, and community college reporting from annual to biennial and consolidate reports; Finance said there were no programmatic changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• The current GAA and implementing bill direct the agency to request budget authority to implement the
• The current GAA and implementing bill direct the agency to request budget authority to implement the
• For this amendment, the current GAA and implementing bill direct the agency to request budget authority
• For this amendment, the current GAA and implementing bill direct the agency to request budget authority
• For this amendment, current GAA and implementing bill directs the agency to request budget authority

Summary: The Legislative Budget Commission considered 21 budget amendments, most of them routine authority adjustments tied to federal grants, Medicaid payment programs, and trust fund realignments. The Department of Education received $14.751 million for a Preschool Development Grant to support early learning system improvements, workforce credentialing and training, IT modernization, and related early childhood certification work. The Department of Veterans Affairs shifted $2.2 million within its trust fund to cover higher nursing home occupancy, replace contract nursing with OPS staff, and meet rising operating costs. The Department of Health moved about $9.1 million to support Disability Determinations, where roughly 140,000 cases were pending or in process, and said the change would help reduce backlog and avoid a deficit. The Agency for Health Care Administration presented multiple amendments for Medicaid-related programs, including $766 million for indirect medical education, $1.9 million for managed care network adequacy audits, $209 million for the Rural Health Transformation Program, and several large supplemental payment programs for hospitals and physicians; members asked about CMS approval delays, provider access, and how rural funds would be distributed. The commission also adopted an amendment realigning KidCare funds, placing a $32.1 million surplus into reserve, though several members objected that the state had not yet implemented the 2023 KidCare expansion and that children remained on a wait list. Another Medicaid amendment placed a $376 million surplus into reserve after updated estimating conference projections. Other agencies also received approvals. FDLE received $16.26 million to buy counter-unmanned aircraft systems equipment such as radar and RF sensors to detect and mitigate drone threats. The Department of Juvenile Justice received $1.6 million for the Florida Scholars Academy and a Social Services Block Grant realignment, with staff confirming corrective action had been taken after prior audit findings about allowable SSBG spending. The Division of Emergency Management received federal pass-through authority for FIFA World Cup security and counter-UAS funds, both controlled by the Miami host committee, and members noted the state had little direct oversight over how those local grants would be used. The Department of Commerce received $148.4 million for Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery work, with questions focused on the split between housing, infrastructure, and administrative costs. The Department of State received $408,377 for arts and culture federal grant obligations. All amendments were adopted, generally without objection, after brief questioning and no public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Major budget issues and proposals the department in the governor's budget includes the managed care organization
• We're seeing trends higher than what we budgeted or assumed as part of the Budget Act and as part of
• Due to the budget deficit, it was not included in the budget, which we were hoping for and expecting.
• Budgets to fully support the capacity needed to implement these programs but often are not provided the
• Some plans have failed to implement the 2023 and 2024 rate increases included in the budget nearly two

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• included in the 2025 Budget Act.
• Budget Act.
• We're having with the budget.
• The Governor's Budget included resources and statute changes in order to implement that.
• The Governor's Budget included resources and statute changes in order to implement that.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major topic was child care and early education, where the Department of Social Services and Department of Finance outlined proposed changes to absorb federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue reductions, shift some funding between child care programs, end funding for prospective pay implementation now that the federal requirement has been rescinded, adjust the alternative payment administration structure, and fund child care infrastructure grants and a Low-Income Investment Fund contract closeout. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the budget makes progress on the structural deficit but recommended maintaining the administration’s solution level, making reserve deposits, and avoiding new ongoing commitments; it also raised concerns about shifting reductions to the California Alternative Payment Program and about the proposed administrative-rate change. Committee members strongly criticized the proposed loss of child care slots and said they would oppose eliminating those slots, while also expressing support for child care as essential infrastructure. The committee then reviewed California State Preschool Program proposals. Finance and CDE described reductions to the preschool COLA from 2.41% to 2.01%, removal of prospective pay funding, and increases for the QRIS block grant, audit support, and rate reform implementation. Trailer bill language would codify age-based rate categories, inclusion-rate documentation, family fee collection rules, portability, and excused absences. CDE supported the QRIS increase and some attendance and family-fee changes, but warned that aligning three- and four-year-old rates could reduce support for three-year-olds and that the budget does not fully cover enrollment growth. Members also questioned whether the preschool and child care slot reductions should be reallocated rather than terminated, and the administration said the reductions were intended to reflect current utilization and avoid harm to currently enrolled families. The hearing then moved to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS said the May Revision includes a one-time CalFood augmentation, funding to cover federal SNAP administrative cost-share pressures, and additional staffing and technical assistance to implement HR 1 changes, including the able-bodied adults without dependents time limit and new non-citizen eligibility rules. The department estimated HR 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people, with roughly 806,000 adults potentially subject to the time limit and about 34,000 non-citizens expected to lose eligibility once fully implemented. Members pressed for stronger harm mitigation, including a $98 million backfill to protect families from losing food benefits, and raised concerns about county workload and the “chilling effect” on immigrant participation. The final portion of the transcript began the IHSS presentation, noting a revised budget of $33.7 billion total funds and $12.8 billion General Fund, with proposed reductions tied to Medi-Cal asset-limit changes and other federal conformity items.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 4333, modifies multiple aspects of the CLO to modernize and update the way that they implement
• And I know none of us know exactly what all is going to be in the budget, but do you anticipate that
• Towards this program and there will be an appropriation to this fund this time around as we debate the budget

Bills: HB2059, HB3920, HB2992, HB3267, HB4457, HB3800, HB3818, HB4425, HB4427, HB4430, HB4431, HB4333, HB4340, HB4343, HB4344, HB4363, HB4229, HB4230, HB4236, HB4246, HB1979, HB3431, HB3052, HB3047, HB3048, HB4092, HB4302, HB3261, HB3704, HB3312, HB3546, HB3849, HCR1021, HB4105, HB4159, HB4304, HB3835, HB3619, HB4490, HB3710, HB4201, HB3907, HB3748

Keywords: health care, medication, inmates, Oklahoma Health Care Authority, reimbursement, county jails, medical expenses, sales tax exemption, nonprofit organizations, procurement, transplant research, Oklahoma Tax Code, HB2992, Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026, Corporation Commission, Oklahoma utilities, ratepayer protection, data centers, artificial intelligence computing, AI data centers

Transcript Highlights:

• Bill 1436 prescribes ballot language that must be included for certain school district elections for budget
• would be required to reflect an estimation of the average reduction in secondary property tax if the budget
• would be required to reflect an estimation of the average reduction in secondary property tax if the budget
• in the county's general fund budget where we're spending around $150,000 a year, and this is just on
• Madam Chair and members, Senate Bill 1573 prohibits a court from using, implementing, referring to, or

Bills: SB1067, SB1234, SB1285, SB1295, SB1392, SB1413, SB1436, SB1470, SB1476, SB1489, SB1512, SB1535, SB1540, SB1556, SB1568, SB1569, SB1570, SB1573, SB1585, SB1609, SB1627, SB1634, SB1635, SB1644, SB1647, SB1648, SB1650, SB1653, SB1654, SB1655, SB1656, SB1657, SB1658, SB1661, SB1662, SB1664, SB1666, SB1667, SB1669, SB1709, SB1720, SB1723, SB1725, SB1743, SB1746, SB1748, SB1755, SB1786, SB1820, SB1822, SB1829, SCR1027, SCR1040, SCR1048

Keywords: tax lien, property tax lien, real property tax lien, foreclosure, right of redemption, redeem, excess proceeds, county abatement lien, abatement lien, lien priority, assessment lien, easement, county treasurer, certificate of purchase, tax delinquency, delinquent property taxes, property owner equity, judgment foreclosure, title report, Arizona Revised Statutes

Summary: The committee approved the minutes and then took up a long agenda of election, criminal justice, corrections, and county-government bills. Early election measures included SB 1436, requiring ballot language for certain school override and bond elections to estimate the secondary property tax impact; SB 1568, requiring election systems’ internal clocks to stay within 60 seconds of official time and making violations a misdemeanor; SB 1569, limiting special election board members from collecting or processing voter registration while assisting confined voters; and SB 1746, requiring voting centers to supplement rather than replace precinct polling places, requiring public offices and schools to provide polling space, and closing schools on primary and general election days for in-service training. SB 1436 and SB 1568 were eventually given do-pass recommendations, SB 1569 also passed committee, and SB 1746 passed despite concerns raised about school safety and access. Some bills were held earlier in the meeting and voted on later after testimony concluded. The committee also heard SB 1295, which would allow the Department of Corrections to release certain seriously ill inmates to contracted medical institutions if they qualify for ALTCS, with an amendment replacing disability language with illness-based criteria; the sponsor described it as a cost-saving measure that could shift care costs to federal programs. SB 1067, the so-called Gila County blight bill, would let counties place abatement costs for rubbish, debris, and dilapidated buildings on property tax bills and liens; county officials testified that it would help recover cleanup costs for blighted properties and heirs’ property, and it passed unanimously. SB 1413 would remove the $100,000 cap on restitution for serious injury or death caused by moving violations and passed after the sponsor said the cap had already been found unconstitutional. SB 1476 would make child neglect a class six felony when a custodian exposes a newborn to dangerous or narcotic drugs or causes fetal alcohol syndrome; supporters framed it as accountability and child protection, while opponents warned it could deter treatment and worsen family separation. The bill passed on a split vote. Later, the committee considered several criminal-justice and public-safety bills. SB 1512 would expand the definition of vulnerable adult and broaden “position of trust and confidence” for theft cases involving seniors and other vulnerable adults; testimony highlighted scams and exploitation of grieving or isolated elders, and the bill passed. SB 1585 would regulate sex-offender-specific evaluations, treatment, and polygraph services through the Sex Offender Management Board, add a surcharge fund and assessment on sexual-offense convictions, and appropriate funds to DPS; supporters said it would create uniform standards, while opponents questioned the need for additional fees, and it passed. SB 1662 would require probation conditions to be the least restrictive necessary and tailored to a defendant’s risk and needs; supporters from the Justice Action Network and criminal-defense advocates said it would improve rehabilitation and public safety, and it passed. The committee also began SB 1664, which would change constable petition-signature requirements in Maricopa and Pima counties, but the transcript cuts off before the full discussion and vote on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Major budget issues and proposals from the department in the Governor's Budget include the managed care
• You all budget based on actuals.
• Due to the budget deficit, it was not included in the budget.
• Some plans have failed to implement the 2023 and 2024 rate increases, which were included in the budget
• Some plans have failed to implement the 2023 and 24 rate increases which were included in the budget

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Student count declining, decline enrollment, budget, general budget limit deficits, and general budget
• capital budget balance to reduce the budget balance deficit, use of general fund budget balance reserves
• The other general financial risk has created an urgency to implement these budget cuts and ensure the
• We implemented a zero-based budgeting approach to desegregation budgeting.
• We are implementing an additional department budget reduction strategy for the upcoming 2026-27 school

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee first heard the January 2026 follow-up to the special audit of the Arizona State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The auditor’s contractor reported that the board had implemented or was in the process of implementing most of the 28 recommendations from the 2024 audit, but three remained unimplemented: resolving complaints within 180 days and two open meeting law recommendations. The follow-up also identified new concerns about outdated or incomplete public disciplinary records and the lack of a complete public records request log and response procedures. Committee members pressed the board on open meeting compliance, complaint delays, transparency, and lobbying activities, while the executive director said the board had adopted new policies, added staff and investigators, created an intake committee, improved complaint prioritization, and was transitioning to a new licensing platform. She also said the board had ended broad subpoenas, improved conflict-of-interest tracking, and was working to formalize its practices in rule. The committee did not take a vote or other formal action in the transcript provided. The committee then received the Arizona school district financial risk analysis for January 2026. The Auditor General’s office reported that the number of highest-risk districts increased from two to nine, and districts approaching the highest-risk category increased from seven to nine. The presentation explained the financial risk measures used, common risk patterns among the highest-risk districts, and the district action plans posted on the report website. Tucson Unified School District was used as an example of a highest-risk district, and Scottsdale Unified as an approaching-highest-risk district. Members asked about declining enrollment, reserve balances, negative fund balances, and the use of capital monies for operations. Sierra Vista Unified School District then presented its response to being identified as financially at risk. The superintendent said she had recently taken over and was implementing a turnaround plan that included a school closure, staffing reductions through attrition, spending freezes, tighter purchase controls, a three-year sustainable spending plan, and efforts to stabilize enrollment through outreach, customer-service changes, and alternative program offerings. She also said the district was redirecting some capital assistance to operations, renegotiating contracts, and improving communication with families and staff. Committee members questioned the district about declining enrollment, instructional spending, school safety, academic performance, and whether the action plan adequately addressed those issues. No formal vote or action was taken on the school district item in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2021, we co-sponsored With Children Now, a budget request. ...for $100 million to implement the state's
• Counties either have implemented or are working to implement standardized decision-making tools for mandated
• However, the cuts implemented in the 2024 budget have impacted our ability to meet these obligations.
• that budget request. move forward.
• I'm here to implore the human services body of the state of California to implement a budget allocation

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• relative to the Governor's budget.
• relative to the Governor's budget.
• relative to the Governor's budget.
• window over the Budget Act.
• I also want to add that it's not included in the education budget, but on the other side of the budget

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard the Governor’s May Revision proposals for TK-12 education, beginning with a Proposition 98 overview from the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Finance said the May Revision increases the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee by about $6.4 billion relative to the Governor’s January budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, continued full payment of the outstanding settle-up obligation in 2024-25, and a reduced $3.9 billion settle-up amount in 2025-26. Finance also described larger mandatory and discretionary deposits into the Proposition 98 reserve, ending with an estimated $10.3 billion reserve balance. The LAO said the overall estimates were reasonable, but urged the state to fully fund the guarantee and use other budget tools, including reserves, to manage volatility rather than delay settle-up payments. Members questioned the remaining settle-up amount, the risk of revenue volatility, and possible alternatives such as advance payments or other reserve strategies. The second panel covered Department of Education proposals and trailer bill language. Finance outlined additional state operations funding and positions for CDE, along with trailer bill changes affecting community schools, preschool, literacy, special education, charter accountability, teacher-related programs, and other technical cleanups. The LAO supported the overall structure of the package but recommended changes to several items, including rejecting some additional one-time community schools, literacy, math, multilingual screener, and inclusive college proposals, while supporting the ongoing LCFF and special education increases and raising concerns about the paid pregnancy disability leave proposal’s cost and implementation complexity. CDE supported the special education increase, community schools, literacy and math investments, homelessness funding, and the paid pregnancy leave proposal, while asking for more funding for county office support, clearer homelessness definitions, and continued preschool parity. Members also asked about immigrant student supports, community schools reporting, and the rationale and cost estimate for the paid pregnancy leave proposal, which Finance estimated at $218 million annually. The final panel addressed the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Finance proposed additional legal staffing for SB 848 implementation and educator misconduct caseloads, a fee increase for clear credential renewals from $100 to $125, a $5 million one-time Proposition 98 investment to build a transcript review platform, $2 million ongoing for transcript review staffing, and $30 million one-time for the statewide residency technical assistance center. The LAO had no concerns about the legal staffing, supported the transcript review platform if the fee increase and ongoing staffing were adopted, and recommended rejecting the residency technical assistance center expansion because existing funding runs through 2029. The Commission explained that the misconduct workload has grown over several years, that AI would assist but not replace human review in transcript matching, and that the residency technical assistance center helps recruit and retain teachers and support rural districts. Public commenters largely supported special education, discretionary block grants, community schools, literacy investments, homelessness funding, and teacher credentialing alternatives, while some urged rejection of the settle-up proposal and preschool COLA reduction.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is designed for implementation.
• If the Legislature decides a priority, we want to see it implemented, we want to see it implemented with
• Last year we had the same proposal on our budget, other budgets, the Committee on the Housing Agency,
• , in those budget negotiations... ...with you and your colleagues around issues around budget.
• or have implemented, just not implementing, but actually contributing to education and where we are

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The joint Senate Education and Budget Committee hearing focused on Governor Newsom’s education governance proposal, which would reorganize state K-12 education leadership by shifting day-to-day management of the Department of Education from the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction to a governor-appointed education commissioner, while giving the superintendent a more policy-focused role and voting seats on the State Board of Education and the California Community Colleges Board of Governors. Brooks Allen, for the State Board of Education and Governor’s office, argued the change would reduce fragmented authority, improve accountability, and align California with other states that use appointed chief education officials. Amber Alexander of the Department of Finance outlined the budget-neutral staffing transfers and transition timeline, and LAO analyst Sarah Cortez said the LAO supports the shift to an appointed commissioner but recommends Senate confirmation, clearer statutory duties, preserved legislative oversight, and a cost-neutral fiscal plan. Committee members raised substantial concerns about timing, constitutionality, voter expectations, and whether the proposal would actually improve student outcomes. Senator Cabaldon argued the change would effectively alter the meaning of the constitutionally created superintendent office during an election year without voter approval, and questioned whether governance restructuring has evidence of improving achievement or should instead yield savings. Other senators asked how the new structure would work in practice, who would be accountable if it failed, whether a governor-appointed commissioner was the best model, and whether local districts would truly see clearer lines of authority. Allen responded that the Legislature retains plenary authority over education, that the transition would be minimally disruptive, and that the proposal was designed to create a single line of management and clearer communication for local districts. The discussion also covered the Legislature’s role in curriculum and education policy. LAO staff explained that the Legislature has broad authority over education and can direct curriculum-related policy, though it has generally delegated detailed curriculum work to the State Board and the Instructional Quality Commission. Several senators said the current system already creates confusion for voters and local educators, while others argued the proposal adds another layer of bureaucracy and overpromises on results. No vote was taken at this hearing; members continued questioning witnesses and indicated the proposal would be examined further in later panels, including testimony from local education leaders.

Transcript Highlights:

• The current GAA and implementing bill direct the agency to request budget authority to implement the
• For this amendment, the current GAA and implementing bill direct the agency to request budget authority
• For this amendment, the current GAA and implementing bill direct the agency to request budget authority
• For this amendment, the current GAA and implementing bill direct the agency to request budget authority
• For this amendment, the current GAA and implementing bill direct the agency to request budget authority

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• down implementation into five categories and has identified three broad phases of implementation between
• Following that, we will have training and implementation activities until we finally implement the rate
• However, the cuts implemented in the 2024 budget have impacted our ability to meet these obligations.
• Jackson, I'm here to implore the human services body of the state of California to implement a budget
• these reparations implementations together, which, while they get these reparations implementations

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held an informational hearing on child welfare, foster care, child support, and related prevention efforts. The chair opened by emphasizing mandated reporting reform, foster care system improvements, and community-based prevention, and noted that no votes would be taken. Public testimony focused first on mandated reporting, where a lived-experience advocate and several organizations argued that the current system overreports families, especially Black, Native, and Latino families, causes trauma, and should be reformed through standardized training, clearer thresholds, and stronger community supports rather than more hotline referrals. Casey Family Programs cited data showing nearly 90% of reports are unsubstantiated, while CDSS said it is already forming a Mandated Reporting Advisory Committee, updating training, and exploring community pathways and possible changes to the list of mandated reporters. CWDA and SEIU supported training and alternative response concepts but stressed child safety, county capacity, funding, and the need for careful implementation and accountability. The committee then discussed a proposal to create a foster care multi-agency office within the California Health and Human Services Agency, led by a chief foster youth advocate with authority to coordinate across departments. Advocates said foster youth often need services from education, health, housing, and behavioral health systems that do not coordinate well, and argued that a central office with real authority could improve placement stability and access to services. CDSS responded that existing structures already provide coordination, including AB 2083 interagency teams, the Child Welfare Council, complex care steering committees, and the foster care ombudsperson, but said it was open to technical assistance. Members raised concerns about whether the new office would have enough authority and funding to avoid becoming another layer of bureaucracy, and the chair emphasized the need for real “teeth” and better interagency action. The final major topic was the continuation and expansion of Promise Neighborhoods. A community leader described strong early results from the state-funded neighborhoods, including improved kindergarten readiness, reduced chronic absenteeism, higher graduation rates, food access, housing supports, and mental health services, but warned that current funding sunsets in June 2025 and that a fiscal cliff could jeopardize staff and services. CDSS said the four funded neighborhoods have reported positive outcomes and valuable flexibility, but also noted challenges with one-time funding, student mental health, and long-term planning. Assemblymember Mia Bonta urged continued investment, saying the place-based model is difficult to rebuild once lost, and the chair asked LAO to help identify the minimum funding needed to preserve the existing infrastructure while evaluation results are still pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• In human services, the budget includes funding to continue implementing the foster care tiered rate structure
• In human services, the budget includes funding to continue implementing the foster care tiered rate structure
• , services the budget includes funding to continue implementing the foster care tiered rate structure
• third-party implementer to implement.
• It does look like there's less funding in the budget now dedicated to implementing the voters' will as

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

Transcript Highlights:

• So I will—what's the budget bill language does the department need to implement this budget change proposal
• And just for example, these programs that we implemented, the grants that we implemented, they're all
• The budget included 120... The budget included 120 new positions for the department.
• We are implementers.
• As a result, we ask that DPR's full budget authority be reinstated, so the full implementation of AB

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations on the administration’s Proposition 4 spending plans for extreme heat mitigation and outdoor access, then took up SB 54 implementation, SB 707 textile producer responsibility, and recovery needs related to the Los Angeles fires at state parks. For the extreme heat chapter, agencies described funding for the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program, urban greening, urban forestry, fairground upgrades, and technical assistance for community-based climate programs. Witnesses emphasized that these are existing programs with strong demand, that technical assistance is important for reaching disadvantaged and tribal communities, and that the proposed funding would expand outreach and implementation capacity. Members asked for more detail on where funds have gone geographically, examples of successful projects, tree-planting totals, and how fairgrounds could better support fire staging and emergency preparedness. The LAO said the timing of the administration’s proposed funding generally made sense because the programs are already established, and no votes were taken. For outdoor access, State Parks, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources described funding for new parks in underserved communities, deferred maintenance, state lands access, and several new or pending programs. State Parks said the park development program would fund roughly 48 projects and that deferred maintenance funding would address high-priority health, safety, and access needs. Fish and Wildlife said its lands program would improve visitor amenities and access on properties that often lack basic facilities. The Natural Resources Agency also outlined three newer outdoor-access proposals: expanding recreation in disadvantaged communities, enhancing natural resource values and trail access, and a nature/climate/education facilities grant program. The LAO distinguished between existing programs, which are ready to move forward, and the newer proposals, where the Legislature may want more input before funds are allocated. Members also raised concerns about park police vacancies, the need to track outcomes for accessibility investments, and whether Prop. 4 could help with wildfire-related recovery at state parks. CalRecycle then presented on SB 54, the plastics and packaging producer responsibility law, and members pressed hard on the delay in regulations. CalRecycle said it has held workshops, formed an advisory committee, selected the producer responsibility organization, and completed required baseline and covered-material reports, but needs more time to address complex comments and novel features such as source reduction and eco-modulated fees. Members expressed frustration that a statutory deadline was missed and asked for a concrete timeline; CalRecycle said it expects regulations in place by 2026, ahead of the PRO’s January 1, 2027 plan deadline. Finance said the Beverage Container Recycling Fund is currently healthy enough to support short-term loans for implementation. The committee also reviewed SB 707, the textile EPR law, which would create the nation’s first textile producer responsibility program; staff said the proposal would add positions and loan authority, and members noted the statutory deadlines for PRO approval, needs assessment, and later regulations. The hearing ended with discussion of the January Los Angeles fires’ damage to Topanga State Park and Will Rogers State Historic Park, where State Parks described extensive losses, emergency response work, and ongoing damage assessment. Members asked about FEMA eligibility, state funding sources, and community engagement in rebuilding, and the department said it is still assessing costs and will work with the public on reimagining the parks.

Transcript Highlights:

• Budget Act.
• So when we proposed the January 10 budget, the Governor's budget, we were counting on looking at CCTR
• The January budget proposed...
• Please to present a budget for a department that does not include budget solutions per se.
• The Governor's Budget included resources and statute changes in order to implement that.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major discussion focused on child care and early education, including proposed reductions tied to federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue changes, the shift of reductions from general child care to the California Alternative Payment Program, the end of funding for prospective pay implementation, a 2.01% cost-of-living adjustment, child care infrastructure grants, and a proposal to increase administrative funding for alternative payment agencies. The Legislative Analyst’s Office generally supported removing prospective pay funding and urged caution on the administrative-rate shift, while also recommending more justification for the slot reduction approach and more detail on infrastructure grant alignment. Committee members strongly objected to eliminating about 6,000 child care slots, arguing the Legislature should preserve and expand child care access. The Department of Education supported the preschool QRIS block grant increase and the COLA but raised concerns about rate alignment for three- and four-year-olds and the lack of funding to maintain enrollment growth. The committee then reviewed trailer bill language affecting child care, including codifying age-based reimbursement categories, expanding documentation for enhanced inclusion rates, clarifying CalWORKs child care eligibility, aligning health and safety standards with federal requirements, coordinating disaster-related infrastructure funding, and updating oversight language. Administration officials said the proposals were intended to support the single reimbursement rate structure, improve safety compliance, and coordinate disaster recovery funding. LAO said it had no major initial concerns with the trailer bill language but would continue reviewing it. The hearing then turned to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS described projected caseload declines, a one-time augmentation for county administration to implement federal H.R. 1 changes, a proposed reassessment schedule for county administrative funding, and updated estimates that H.R. 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people. Members pressed the administration on the impact of H.R. 1, the “chilling effect” on immigrant households, county workload, and whether the state should backfill federal cuts, especially for families with children subject to new work requirements. The committee also discussed a one-time CalFood augmentation, state administrative expense funding, staffing for H.R. 1 implementation, and a small increase to the CACFP meal reimbursement rate. Finally, the committee began IHSS items, including the impact of reinstating the Medi-Cal asset limit, automatic IHSS termination tied to Medi-Cal loss, and related savings and caseload estimates, with the administration explaining that these proposals would reduce eligibility and that there is no broad substitute for IHSS for many recipients.

Transcript Highlights:

• and an unfavorable budget.
• We've been working on this budget in an unfavorable budget climate.
• As we saw in the 2025–26 state budget, closing budget shortfalls without raising revenues results in
• As we work towards implementing H.R. 1...
• elements that will be implemented later on.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held its fifth hearing of the year to examine the newly enacted federal H.R. 1 and its effects on California. Members and the chair described the law as a major threat to state health, food, education, and climate programs, and emphasized that California would not be able to fully backfill the federal cuts. Several members also highlighted the bill’s tax provisions, including temporary deductions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, while warning that the largest benefits flow to higher-income taxpayers and that major cuts to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and clean-energy incentives are delayed or phased in over time. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance presented detailed overviews of the bill’s likely impacts and implementation timelines. They identified the main affected areas as health care coverage and financing, food assistance, higher education, personal income taxes, and clean-energy/electric-vehicle credits. They explained that H.R. 1 limits provider taxes used to finance Medi-Cal, adds work and redetermination requirements, restricts CalFresh eligibility and increases state costs, changes student loan and Pell Grant rules, extends and modifies federal tax provisions, and phases out many clean-energy credits. Finance also noted major rescissions of Inflation Reduction Act funds, new border and immigration enforcement spending, and the possibility of PAYGO sequestration if Congress does not act to offset the deficit increase. During member questions, the committee focused on likely enrollment losses, administrative burdens, and fiscal exposure for the state and counties. Witnesses said many details still depend on federal guidance, but they estimated significant impacts on Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and graduate/professional student borrowing, and noted that California’s high CalFresh error rate could increase state costs. UC testified that the elimination of Graduate PLUS loans would affect thousands of professional students, especially in health, law, and other high-cost programs. Members asked for follow-up data on county, health, and tax impacts, and staff agreed to provide additional tables and estimates as implementation guidance becomes clearer. Public commenters from counties, early childhood advocates, health coalitions, disability rights groups, immigrant-rights organizations, and other stakeholders urged the Legislature to mitigate the law’s effects. They warned of higher county costs, reduced access to health care and food assistance, increased administrative burdens, and harm to children, immigrants, people with disabilities, and low-income families. Several urged new state revenue solutions and stronger protections for Medi-Cal, CalFresh, child care, and home- and community-based services. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with a commitment to continue monitoring federal guidance and to work on state responses in the budget process.

Transcript Highlights:

• The governor's budget does balance the budget in the budget year plus in the following year, and that's
• The Budget Act, as was mentioned earlier, imposes a $30 premium for these individuals to be implemented
• And budget year plus one?
• So, budget year plus one, we're looking at about 822,000 individuals at full implementation.
• future budget years.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.