Transcript Highlights:

• c> the management budget budget division in the management budget budget division in the development
• Um, really it's just a variance analysis comparing budget figures to actual fiscal impacts.
• analysis provided by the legislative budget officer, whoever is providing that uh report. in such an
• officer to do this type legislate budget officer to do this type of<00:15:23.040> analysis,<00
• in uh provided by the legislate analysis in uh provided by the legislate budget<00:15:28.639> officer

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Caucus Public Commission met with a quorum present, approved the September 3, 2025 minutes, and then heard a presentation from Legislative Budget Office Director Christian Larson on proposed updates to the fiscal note uniform standards and procedures. The main changes clarified that agencies must still complete a fiscal note when a bill or section cannot be implemented because of federal law, with the note explaining the implementation issue and costing only the portions that can be implemented. A second change said technical comments about possible future litigation may be included in the narrative but not in the cost tables. Members discussed how these rules would apply when only part of a bill is unimplementable versus when an entire bill is, and whether requiring a note in those cases is the best use of agency time. The commission also approved a new procedure on funding-source assumptions for expanded programs, including assuming the current funding source unless the bill says otherwise and defaulting to the general fund if no source is identified. The updated standards and procedures were adopted by a 7-0 roll call vote, with Senator Wickland excused. The commission then received a second presentation from Director Larson on a possible analysis of the accuracy of fiscal estimates and budget items after enactment. He described this as a variance analysis comparing fiscal note estimates to actual fiscal impacts, intended to improve future estimates, inform the legislature, and increase accountability. He summarized practices in other states, noting that most variance reviews are ad hoc, while Utah and Tennessee have more formalized legislative reports; he also referenced an LBO pilot review done in 2022 based largely on Tennessee’s model. The presentation outlined possible report formats, including a single annual report, standalone briefs, or topic-specific reviews, and raised implementation questions such as who would select items for review, whether the analysis should be limited to fiscal notes, what statutory authority or data access would be needed, and what resources would be required from both agencies and the LBO. Members did not take action on the second presentation. Representative Anderson and Vice Chair Pratt commented that the proposal is complicated but potentially useful for improving future fiscal notes and transparency, and the chair indicated the discussion was for future consideration rather than an immediate decision.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the Legislative Budget Board still consistently produces the analysis, a dynamic fiscal note for
• And finally, just from a practical standpoint, balanced budget requirements can kind of make this analysis
• accuracy I think of dynamic analysis. accuracy I think of dynamic analysis.
• um want to use this type of analysis um want to use this type of analysis for?
• impactful I think to our budgeting impactful I think to our budgeting process.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Office Oversight Commission met on January 22, 2026, with a quorum present and approved the minutes from the December 17, 2025 meeting. The main presentation was by Erikica McKeler of the National Conference of State Legislatures on dynamic fiscal notes, dynamic scoring, and how they differ from static fiscal notes. She explained that dynamic analysis tries to capture broader economic and behavioral effects of policy changes, but that most states have experimented with it only briefly, often for tax bills, and many have later scaled back or abandoned the practice because it is staff-intensive, expensive, and difficult to validate. McKeler highlighted examples from Texas, Utah, and Arkansas. Texas requires dynamic fiscal impact statements for certain large tax or fee measures and for the biennial appropriations bill; Utah has done such analyses on request during the interim but only when staff time allows; and Arkansas recently began producing dynamic fiscal notes with thresholds and request limits. She noted that these states generally use REMI software, though Utah switched to IMPLAN for cost reasons. She also outlined common challenges, including the need for strong staff expertise, the sensitivity of results to assumptions, the expense of software licenses, and the difficulty of measuring accuracy over time. Members then discussed whether dynamic scoring could be useful for health and human services programs where a policy may shift costs between settings rather than create a simple new expense. Senator Marty raised a Medicaid example involving home-based blue light therapy for newborns, arguing that dynamic analysis might better capture potential savings from avoiding longer hospital stays. Legislative Budget Office and Minnesota Management and Budget staff responded that such effects may be better understood as direct program substitutions rather than true dynamic effects, and emphasized the need for reliable data and caution because savings estimates could reduce appropriations if they do not materialize. The discussion also touched on whether dynamic models would capture local government impacts, but no formal action was taken beyond the approval of minutes and receipt of the presentation.

Bills: HB2299, HB2939, HB2941, HB2960, HB3062, HB3087, HB3114, HB3244, HB3262, HB3304, HB3345, HB3386, HB3431, HB3498, HB3581, HB3645, HB3648, HB3764, HB3852, HB3974, HB4141, HB4144, HB4227, HB4237, HB4343, HB4425

Keywords: Article V, convention, amendments, criminal penalties, legislative authority, absentee voting, electronic communication, facsimile device, voting materials, military voters, fentanyl, overdose, first responders, drug reporting, immunity, controlled substances, penalties, firearm liability, tort reform, manufacturers

Transcript Highlights:

• for vast inconsistencies between ... between districts and leaves staffing decisions vulnerable to budget
• Shrinking budgets, adding building space without added staff.
• cost to this bill, but we are luckily already have five for 5.4 million already appropriated in the budget
• James Curitan and I'm the Director of Assessments. and data analysis for Tyler ISD.
• That enhances the coercion aspect. the Supreme Court's analysis.

Bills: HB4, HB54, SB 10, SB 24, HB4, HB54, HB775, HB850, HB 1122, HB 1249, HB1405, HB2336, HB2757, HB3372, HB3622, HB4442, HB4687, HB4893, HB5089, HB5515, HB5606, SB10, SB24, HB1573, HB3369

Keywords: district composition, congressional election, Texas, legislature, voting districts, citizenship, U.S. citizen, non-citizen, public office, advisory board, task force, state government, local government, political subdivision, commission board, appointment eligibility, officeholder qualifications, public service, naturalization, Texas Government Code

Transcript Highlights:

• They don't even understand how the school board budget works. You guys studied the M&O and INS.
• There had been no real financial analysis, no task force, no conversations with our community, and no
• We elect board members to make policy decisions, to work on curriculum, and to make budgets.
• School districts across the state are facing budget shortfalls of crisis proportions, and learning that
• Itself and to use that as a tool to close a budget gap.

Bills: HB4, HB54, HB775, HB850, HB 1122, HB 1249, HB1405, HB2336, HB2757, HB3372, HB3622, HB4442, HB4687, HB4893, HB5089, HB5515, HB5606, SB10, SB24, HB1573, HB3369, HB4, HB54, SB 10, SB 24

Keywords: non-human behaviors, education, Texas schools, policy, regulation, funding, teacher salaries, school districts, state budget, non-enrolled students, University Interscholastic League, participation, eligibility standards, school participation, academic standards, Texas education, interscholastic league, extracurricular activities, academic proficiency, AED

Transcript Highlights:

• that we created the legislated budget that we created the legislated budget office<00:02:46.720>
• <00:03:47.280> office chair of the legislative budget office chair of the legislative budget
• The options really were the enacted budget in 2023 or the October actuarial analysis.
• way we could measure across the same methodology. analysis required in the enacting analysis required
• The actual analysis comes out and the agency says, well, we were reacting to the actual analysis.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the fiscal note process, prompted by concerns raised in a prior hearing about the fiscal note for the Paid Family and Medical Leave law. Chair Marty, Senator Pratt, and Senator Wiklund said the goal was not to revisit the bill itself but to strengthen understanding of fiscal note standards, the role of the Legislative Budget Office (LBO), and communication with agencies. They emphasized bipartisan concern that fiscal notes must be respected and that the process should be clearer going forward. Christian Larison of the LBO explained that the 2024 fiscal note issues stemmed from three main problems: choosing the proper baseline for a program that had not yet started, interpreting the seven-day qualifying event/waiting period, and determining whether DEED could adjust the first-year premium rate. He said the LBO, DEED, MMB, and House fiscal staff ultimately used the October 2023 actuarial analysis as the baseline because it was the most recent and likely most accurate estimate, but that choice meant the fiscal note did not show the difference from the 2023 enacted budget. He also described how DEED later interpreted the seven-day provision as a waiting period and how the premium-rate assumptions affected the fiscal impact. Larison outlined possible responses, including more assertive early communication from the LBO, providing more detailed analysis in unusual cases, and possibly creating a working group through the LBO Oversight Commission to consider new standards for substantial assumption changes, complex new programs, and third-party actuarial work. He also noted the LBO has authority to issue unapproved fiscal notes if standards are not met, though it has not used that authority. In questions, Senator Murphy asked about protecting the credibility of fiscal notes, and Larison said maintaining independence, objectivity, and consistent standards is central to the LBO’s role. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's one scenario where the Legislative Budget Office could provide additional analysis and research
• So that's one scenario where the Legislative Budget Office could provide additional analysis and research
• So that's one scenario where the Legislative Budget Office could provide additional analysis and research
• So that's one scenario where the Legislative Budget Office could provide additional analysis and research
• So that's one scenario where the Legislative Budget Office could provide additional analysis and research

Bills: HF3

Keywords: legislative auditor, reporting, accountability, state finance, executive agency oversight, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The 25-27 biennial budget and the 26 supplemental budget.
• gaps is because they haven't really done the analysis to figure out whether they have a budget gap or
• gaps is because they haven't really done the analysis to figure out whether they have a budget gap or
• So, So. they have a budget gap or not, or at least they haven't done that analysis sufficiently.
• And so many states aren't doing the analysis to know if they have a structurally balanced budget.

Summary: The committee held its first meeting, with co-chairs and members introducing themselves and staff outlining the committee’s statutory mandate under the 2025-27 supplemental operating budget. Staff explained that the Joint Legislative-Executive Committee on Budget Transparency and Fiscal Sustainability will receive technical assistance from a nonpartisan organization, with work split into two phases: first on revenue growth, spending assumptions, and cost drivers in the four-year outlook, and later on staffing, overhead, performance management, and public reporting. Members broadly said they hoped the committee would build a shared factual understanding of the state’s fiscal situation, structural deficits, and budget processes, and identify a sustainable path forward for the operating budget. Staff then gave a detailed presentation on operating budget basics. They reviewed the size and composition of the operating budget, noting that most spending is concentrated in grants/client services and salaries/benefits, with K-12, DSHS, HCA, DCYF, DOC, and higher education making up most NGFO spending. They explained the distinction between constitutional, federal, statutory, and discretionary spending, using examples such as K-12, Medicaid, collective bargaining agreements, court-driven obligations like McCleary and Trueblood, and one-time appropriations. They also walked through how the state uses incremental budgeting, carry-forward and maintenance-level calculations, caseload and per-capita forecasting, and the four-year balanced budget outlook, including reserve calculations and the budget stabilization account. Members asked extensive questions about what is and is not included in the outlook, especially future collective bargaining agreements, health care and compensation growth, tort and other liabilities, and whether the state could better distinguish mandatory from discretionary spending. Staff explained that current CBAs and other already-enacted obligations are included, but future CBAs are not; some liabilities are reflected as expenditures when appropriated, while broader long-term liabilities are not fully captured in the outlook because they depend on future policy choices. Staff also noted that the legislature and ERFC can adopt assumptions such as reversions and growth factors, and that an outlook accuracy report is produced every five years to compare projected and actual maintenance-level spending. The committee agreed to follow up on some of the more complex liability and assumption questions. After a short break, Josh Goodman of the Pew Charitable Trusts began a presentation on Pew’s role and approach to state fiscal sustainability. He described Pew as a nonpartisan organization with long-standing state fiscal research, emphasizing its 50-state comparative data, interviews with state officials and experts, and focus on long-term sustainability, reserve policies, and recession preparedness. The presentation was ongoing when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• on the impact statement, because here's what happens in the budget: they budget for an increase in property
• <00:09:53.920> the<00:09:54.200> FIS budget what what the budget the FIS budget what
• c><00:09:58.800> increase<00:09:59.640> in budget they budget for an increase in budget
• for<00:10:31.760> every budget because they budget for every budget because they budget for
• since you don't have the the analysis since you don't have the analysis<00:10:58.959> I'll<00

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Attendance Roll Call: 00:08 Senate Bill 79 (Sen. McDaniel): 00:48 Senate Bill 67 (Sen. Nemes): 08:09 Adjournment: 12:43, 958, all

Summary: The Senate State and Local Government Committee met and first took up Senate Bill 79, sponsored by Senator McDaniel, with testimony from McDaniel and Deputy Secretary Robert Long of the Personnel Cabinet. They described the bill as a cleanup measure for personnel law that would, among other things, add interns to the definition of employee while excluding them from full-time employee status, remove the Personnel Cabinet secretary as an ex officio member of the KERS Board, clarify personnel board membership and grievance rights, limit appeals of satisfactory-or-above evaluations, address layoffs and reemployment rights, allow leave donation in certain resignations or retirements, restrict remote work from outside Kentucky without approval, permit deductions for unreturned state equipment, and make DJJ facility supervisors non-merit positions. The committee voted on SB 79 and passed it with favorable expression. The committee then heard Senate Bill 67, presented by Chair Nemes, an elder property tax bill. The bill would freeze the assessed value of a primary residence for homeowners age 65 or older until the property is no longer their primary residence, while still taxing at the current rate. Nemes said the measure was intended to help seniors on fixed incomes and noted a fiscal analysis showing little to no direct revenue loss, though it could reduce projected budgeted growth in property tax revenue. Committee discussion noted a local impact and a statewide budget impact estimate of about $4 million for the first two fiscal years. SB 67 also passed with favorable expression, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• background of the legislative budget background of the legislative budget office<00:03:10.560>
• process the FIS the legislative budget process the FIS the legislative budget office<00:03:35.799
• included in the most recent um budget included in the most recent um budget and<00:09:26.800>
• submitted to the legislative budget submitted to the legislative budget office<00:10:25.200>
• <00:55:56.280> IES conducting the analysis IES conducting the analysis IES representative<

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I just saw that in my analysis. Maybe my analysis was...
• I just saw that in my analysis. Maybe my analysis was incorrect. But, okay.
• Madam Speaker and gentlemen, what that will include is an analysis of the economic impact, the status
• For example, when WorkForce Solutions presents to budget committees in the legislature or to LFC, would
• There will be analysis of the economic impact.

Bills: HB111, HB103, HB109, HB128, HJM2, HJM3, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50, HB49, HB60, HB108, HB120, HB124, HB145, HB154, HB158, HB164, HB180, HB291, HJR6, HJR7, HR1, HJM1, HM13, HM47

Keywords: water law, state engineer, civil penalty, compliance order, water rights, overdiversion, illegal diversion, groundwater storage and recovery, well license, permit violation, water enforcement, New Mexico water code, irrigation district, conservancy district, water diversion, unauthorized water sales, measuring device, district court appeal, water resources, water compliance

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to Assembly Budget Sub 4.
• So for ELRP in 2025, the budget was $219 million dollars across all. 2025, the budget was $219 million
• That was the authorized budget.
• , including our budget requests.
• It's an analysis of all of them.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard a budget item on demand-side grid support and emergency load flexibility funding. The Department of Finance proposed redirecting General Fund money for summer 2026 to the CEC’s Demand-Side Grid Support program and using accumulated CalCHAP interest to support a successor ratepayer-funded demand response program for summers 2027 and 2028. The CEC and CPUC said they are working on a transition from DSGS to ELRP or an equivalent program, while the LAO said the proposal mainly presents a choice between keeping the money in General Fund savings or using it for DSGS. Members pressed the administration on why DSGS should be sunset when it has higher enrollment and lower administrative costs than ELRP, and on whether the state should continue funding demand response at all. The CPUC argued ELRP and DSGS are not directly comparable, said it is pursuing a broader demand flexibility rulemaking, and noted a decision on a successor program is expected in Q3 2026. No vote was taken in the excerpt, but members signaled interest in keeping DSGS funding at the CEC. The second item concerned trailer bill language for the transmission accelerator program under SB 254 and Proposition 4. GoBiz and IBank described a new financing structure for major transmission projects selected through CAISO’s competitive planning process, with about $26 million in administrative resources over five years. The LAO raised no specific concerns but emphasized that this is the Legislature’s first appropriation for a new program and that the final language should clearly reflect legislative intent. Members asked about state liability, ownership, and how the financing would lower ratepayer costs; staff explained that state financing would cover only a portion of large projects and could reduce the amount included in utility rate base, with estimated lifetime savings varying widely. Members also discussed offshore wind transmission needs and asked for an update on related Proposition 4 funding. The final item covered CEC and DPMO budget requests related to petroleum market oversight and supply stabilization. The CEC requested funding for additional positions to implement AB X2-1 and related fuel market monitoring work, while DPMO sought to make a data specialist position permanent. The LAO said it found the staffing requests justified. Members questioned why the work is funded through the Energy Resources Programs Account, whether staff from paused price-gouging work could be reassigned, and what evidence had been found of price gouging or market manipulation. CEC and DPMO said their work on reporting, analysis, and supply stabilization continues, that some staff are still working on related analyses, and that they are preparing further workshops and recommendations. The discussion also touched on refinery closures, gasoline imports, and the state’s changing fuel supply conditions, but no formal action was taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to Assembly Budget Sub 4.
• That was the authorized budget.
• , including our budget requests.
• It's an analysis of all of them.
• It was the budget they lived by.

Summary: The committee first heard Issue 1 on trailer bill language to redirect funding for emergency demand-response programs. The Department of Finance proposed using about $26.9 million in General Fund originally set aside for the Distributed Energy Backup Assets program to bolster the Demand-Side Grid Support Program for summer 2026, and using about $70 million in CalCHAP interest to support ratepayer-funded demand response in summers 2027 and 2028. The CEC and CPUC said they are working on a transition from DSGS to ELRP or a successor program, while the LAO noted the General Fund money would otherwise revert to savings. Members pressed the administration on whether demand response remains important, whether DSGS has been successful, and whether the state should keep funding it through the CEC rather than shifting to a ratepayer-funded CPUC program. The CEC and CPUC said the programs are not directly comparable, emphasized different cost structures and enrollment metrics, and said a CPUC rulemaking is underway with a proposed decision expected in Q3 2026. No vote was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up Issue 2, a budget proposal tied to SB 254 and the new transmission accelerator. GoBiz and the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank described a five-year, roughly $26 million request to staff and administer the accelerator and manage Proposition 4 and AB 1207 funds for transmission financing. Members asked about state liability, ownership of financed lines, FERC revenue requirements, and whether the program would help underserved regions and offshore wind development. Staff explained that the accelerator would only consider projects already identified through CAISO’s competitive transmission planning process, and that state financing would be a small portion of large projects intended to lower overall costs to ratepayers. The LAO said it had no specific concerns but urged the Legislature to ensure the final language matches its intent. The committee also heard Issue 3 on petroleum market oversight. The CEC and its Division of Petroleum Market Oversight requested additional positions and funding to implement ABX2-1 and continue work on supply stabilization, refinery monitoring, and transportation fuels analysis. Members questioned why the work was funded through the Energy Resources Programs Account, whether existing staff from the paused price-gouging work could be reassigned, and whether the program had produced evidence of price gouging or improved supply conditions. CEC and Finance said the new positions are needed because the workload has expanded, while some existing staff remain on related analysis and reporting duties. The discussion ended without a vote in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• So when we do our salary analysis, ...we do our salary analysis of public sector comparisons against
• I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis.
• An analysis would confirm that for us.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• insurance department would pay for the cost-benefit analysis services through their budget.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• up the uh the budget up the uh the budget bill.<00:01:17.159> Um<00:01:18.159> I've
• budget uh conversation. Lay that over. budget uh conversation. Lay that over.
• our budget omnibus. our budget omnibus.
• > budget<01:31:41.120> is This budget is forward-looking.
• the context that we have on our budgets. the context that we have on our budgets.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis.
• An analysis would confirm that for us.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• services through their budget.
• I'll move the analysis. A second. further analysis. So Representative Vetter?

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• With respect to the department's budget, the proposed budget for fiscal year 2026-27 totals $3.2 billion
• The proposed budget includes four permanent positions and two one-year limited-term positions in budget
• So they’re ongoing budget requests.
• approved through the Budget Act.
• The broader budget context matters.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard updates from the Department of State Hospitals on its proposed 2026-27 budget, including a $3.2 billion total budget, patient-driven operating cost increases, savings in the IST solutions program, and progress in meeting the Stiavedi court-ordered 28-day treatment standard. DSH reported it has met court benchmarks, reduced the IST pending placement list from a pandemic high of 1,953 to about 250, and is now averaging about five days to initiate treatment. Members asked about the effects of Proposition 36 and SB 1323 on referrals, outside hospitalization costs, Medicare coverage, and whether IST solution funds were being overbudgeted; DSH said referrals are slightly down overall, outside medical costs are rising due to inflation and an aging population, and the IST savings reflect slower-than-expected activation of community programs rather than a service gap. The department also outlined proposed funding for electrical infrastructure upgrades at Napa and Patton, a feasibility study under SB 380 for transitional housing for the CONREP SVP program, and a dental services expansion at Metropolitan and Patton. The committee held those DSH items open after discussion. The Commission for Behavioral Health presented its role in overseeing the transition from MHSA to BHSA, including data, evaluation, transparency, grantmaking, and technical assistance. It described the new Innovation Partnership Fund, a statewide innovation grant program funded at up to $20 million annually for five years, with small and large grants, and said it had received strong interest ahead of the May 8 application deadline. Members asked about what qualifies as innovation, whether grants could be renewed, and how the state would ensure the program supports service delivery rather than general outreach or training. The commission also sought a liquidation deadline extension for up to $4.062 million in remaining Alcove Youth Drop-in Center funds so sites can finish implementation and Stanford can complete the final evaluation; that item was also held open. DHCS provided an overview of behavioral health policy changes under CalAIM and BH Connect, including peer support, mobile crisis, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, the access reform and outcomes incentive program, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation, transitional rent, and upcoming youth-focused guidance such as high-fidelity wraparound and activity funds. On BHSA implementation, DHCS said it is not tracking specific local program cuts, but is monitoring county plans and outcomes while noting that counties must still preserve Medi-Cal specialty mental health and DMC-ODS services. The department also discussed its H.R. 1 implementation strategy, including outreach, streamlined renewals, ex parte exemptions, and proposed clinic navigator and outreach funding to reduce Medi-Cal coverage loss, especially for people with behavioral health needs. In response to questions, DHCS said it has not produced a specific H.R. 1 impact estimate for county behavioral health populations, and later explained that counties can still use BHSA and other funding streams for prevention and early intervention while the state tracks impacts through integrated plans and new performance measures. The department also reported on BH-CHIP bond spending, saying it has awarded $5.8 billion for 437 infrastructure projects creating 546 new or expanded facilities and more than 9,553 residential beds, with tribal set-asides exceeding the original allotment.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is built into the budget that you guys approve for each agency.
• I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis.
• An analysis would confirm that for us.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• insurance department would pay for the cost-benefit analysis services through their budget.

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• in the budget year.
• We haven't done an analysis to say.
• Another question: when we were talking about budgeting, we're budget...
• Another question: when we were talking about budgeting, we're budgeting for 100% ADA, right, average
• The governor's budget moves forward with the plan from the Budget Act of 2021 with full implementation

Summary: The committee heard presentations on the Governor’s education budget proposals for the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), Learning Recovery Block Grant, and Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), followed by testimony from State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond. On LCFF, Finance outlined the proposed 2.43% COLA, repayment of prior deferrals, and a trailer bill penalty for LEAs that fail to adopt Local Control Accountability Plans on time. The LAO said its COLA estimate was slightly lower and raised concerns that the Governor’s proposed TK staffing ratio increase may be more costly than estimated. Members also discussed whether the current COLA formula should better reflect California-specific or district staffing costs, and whether TK should be more clearly separated from the K-3 grade span adjustment to avoid larger K-3 class sizes. The chair asked staff to work with the LAO on both the TK/K-3 issue and alternative COLA calculations. For the Learning Recovery Block Grant, Finance proposed restoring the first of three delayed payments, $378.6 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund, while the LAO recommended adopting the proposal but extending the expenditure deadline by at least a year. The LAO reported that districts had spent $1.6 billion of the $6.8 billion received through 2023-24 and said most districts were only now shifting from federal COVID relief to block grant spending. Members questioned whether the large state and federal investments were improving outcomes, citing declining reading and math trends, while Finance and the State Board president pointed to some signs of improvement, especially in math, attendance, and gains for some student groups. Darling-Hammond emphasized that student needs have grown, that recovery spending has gone to devices, ventilation, staffing, tutoring, summer school, and community schools, and that targeted interventions appear to be helping some districts recover faster than others. On ELOP, Finance proposed adding $435 million to expand universal access by lowering the Tier 1 threshold from 75% to 55% unduplicated pupils, bringing ongoing funding to $4.4 billion. The LAO said the estimate was reasonable but recommended delaying implementation for a year, aligning ELOP with ASES to reduce overlap, moving toward funding based on participation rather than enrollment, and considering a fixed Tier 2 rate. Members and witnesses discussed staffing challenges, the use of funds for students with disabilities, and uncertainty in Tier 2 funding caused by unspent dollars and opt-outs. Darling-Hammond supported ELOP as part of California’s broader after-school and summer learning strategy, said most districts are now offering full-day TK and expanded learning, and urged the state to reduce fragmentation across categorical programs and build more unified systems for funding, reporting, and support.

Transcript Highlights:

• Being on appropriations, that $2 billion is a very important part of this budget.
• Legislation is to plug the $2 billion hole in the budget.
• Number one, this is not the money bill that's in the budget. You already voted, or some of you did.
• For the budget. This money is placed in the budget. That's not this bill. You already voted.
• Finalize the budget. That's what they're being discussed, but you'll have a ceiling of that.

Bills: SB835, SB3070, SB22, SJR59, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB973, SB974, SB865, SB506, SB781, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB505, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB3073, SB2920, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB2460, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB2595, SB857, SB37, SB8, SB10, SB227, SB261, SB12, SB15, SJR27, SB552, SB835, SB3070, SB22, SJR59, SB25, SB57, SB127, SB293, SB441, SB3059, SB512, SB241, SB1718, SB140, SB2055, SB2075, SB2018, SB1534, SB1567, SB785, SB1233, SB1580, SB1663, SB413, SB447, SB519, SB467, SB1579, SB1191, SB1021, SB1838, SB2807, SB2835, SB546, SB2121, SB2167, SB2035, SB2024, SB1032, SB1049, SB1266, SB1400, SB1302, SB401, SB1596, SB1281, SB1242, SB1343, SB310, SB1346, SB2753, SB2703, SB2221, SB1719, SB2177, SB800, SB790, SB748, SB571, SB1957, SB1923, SB1896, SB1760, SB1335, SB2368, SB2477, SB2587, SB2972, SB2986, SB2965, SB1563, SB1467, SB1164, SB1137, SB614, SB705, SB961, SB918, SB955, SB869, SB850, SB863, SB1610, SB1055, SB2206, SB457, SB2337, SB1362, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB973, SB974, SB865, SB506, SB781, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB505, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB3073, SB2920, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB2460, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB2595, SB857, SCR9, HB5560, HB762, HB 107, HB 114, HB300, HB138, HB4386, HB2495, HB581, HB3348, HB5323

Keywords: sexual abuse, nondisclosure agreements, confidentiality agreements, public policy, victim rights, lottery, bingo, regulation, Texas Lottery Commission, Department of Licensing and Regulation, criminal offenses, state administration, audits, transfers, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation