Transcript Highlights:

• We have worked closely with the Governor to make some difficult choices, to implement some surgical budget
• budget more than having them.
• So SB 111 is the budget bill junior to the 2026 Budget Act.
• This budget provides changes to AB 109, the Legislature's budget adopted earlier this month.
• And this budget and the sustainability of this budget confirms that.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to Assembly Budget. Full room here. Welcome to Assembly Budget Sub 4.
• That would be budgeted as $25 million within CNRA's budget, $25 million within WCB's budget, and $75
• Budget assumed roughly $3.77 billion in both the current year and budget year.
• budget year.
• that program of implementation.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard the Department of Finance’s May Revision overview and the LAO’s budget assessment, then questioned administration officials on several natural resources and transportation proposals. Finance described the state’s improved near-term fiscal picture, but also highlighted continued budget balancing measures, including use of the temporary surplus holding account, climate bond spending, transportation and DMV/CHP augmentations, and changes affecting CEQA filing systems, water programs, CalRecycle, and food and agriculture. The LAO argued the budget still relies heavily on reserves and borrowing, recommended rejecting or delaying many new discretionary proposals, and urged caution about ongoing costs and future-year impacts, especially for the General Fund, Motor Vehicle Account, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance officials said the $25 million request would support early implementation of an enforceable program combining environmental flows, habitat restoration, and scientific monitoring, with the State Water Board retaining regulatory authority. The LAO said the proposal was premature because the updated Bay-Delta plan had not yet been adopted and asked for more clarity on the state’s existing commitments and future funding expectations. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce long-running conflict over water policy, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquisition of the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat restoration. State agencies said the project had a completed appraisal, was moving through a rolling grant process, and would leverage philanthropic and local funding, while members questioned why it was being elevated ahead of other park and conservation requests and whether it was the best use of limited bond dollars. The hearing then turned to transportation items, including $40 million for Clean California litter abatement, $6.2 million for Caltrans homeless coordinators, $73.4 million in DMV/Motor Vehicle Account requests, and funding for the 2028 Games route network. The LAO generally recommended rejecting or delaying the Clean California and homeless coordinator proposals pending more information, while members debated the need to preserve essential CHP and DMV operations despite the Motor Vehicle Account’s structural imbalance.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we'll hear the governor's January budget proposal to fully implement Universal TK.
• January budget proposal to fully implement Universal TK.
• Transitional kindergarten began its implementation with the Budget Act of 2021.
• The 2025–26 governor's budget moves forward with full implementation of TK by allowing universal access
• to inform the May Revision to the governor's budget and the final budget act.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on California’s child care, preschool, and transitional kindergarten oversight, with chairs emphasizing the state’s Master Plan for Early Learning and Care and the need to break down silos between programs. CDSS and CDE reported progress toward the plan’s goals, including universal access to TK for all four-year-olds next school year, expanded access for low-income three-year-olds, and more children with disabilities being served in state preschool. They also noted ongoing work on quality rating/review reform, funding structure changes, and the need to address rates, workforce shortages, and federal uncertainty around Head Start. Testimony from advocacy groups and providers largely supported expanding access while simplifying the system. Children Now, Every Child California, and the California Budget and Policy Center argued that California still has uneven access, especially for infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds, and urged investments in mixed delivery, inclusion, full-day options, and a cost-of-care rate methodology. Every Child California recommended consolidating part-day and full-day contracts, streamlining eligibility priorities, making the two-year-old option permanent, and funding staffing incentives. Parent testimony highlighted how child care gaps and county-to-county transfer delays can disrupt work, safety, and children’s stability, and providers described low reimbursement rates, the need for health and retirement benefits, and support for delinking subsidy rates from private pay. The second panel addressed universal transitional kindergarten. The Learning Policy Institute reported rapid TK expansion, with most districts now offering TK, but said access still depends on facilities, staffing, and whether programs are available at all school sites. The Department of Finance said the governor’s budget would fully implement TK by adding funding for all eligible four-year-olds and lowering the adult-to-child ratio from 12:1 to 10:1. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the administration’s enrollment and cost assumptions were optimistic and estimated lower TK enrollment growth and lower costs for the ratio change. CDE supported the expansion and urged continued funding for UPK coordinators, teacher development, and mixed-delivery planning grants. Members questioned facilities shortages, staffing competition, and how to ensure TK expansion does not displace CSPP or Head Start classrooms. No formal votes or actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So when you are, we're looking at kind of the the budget and the estimated implementation costs interested
• So if you look at the the breakdown of the budget, there is the core implementation is the licensing
• Buchanan, thank you for the question. >> Post implementation and really during implementation we have
• So implementation cost get moved around.
• Going going to the budget is is the budget. I don't.

Transcript Highlights:

• To build capacity to implement the READ Act.
• It's the Governor's budget proposal.
• Overall, this is a balanced budget package.
• The increase to your state budget, or sorry, to MDE's budget In the past two years, I was going to ask
• I look at this budget and I think it's cruel.

Bills: HF2430, HF2433

Keywords: education finance, teacher training, Read Act, state aid, school funding, education funding, children with disabilities, transition aid, special education, school district consolidation

Transcript Highlights:

• This Budget Committee will cover public safety.
• The budget includes $2.7 million and the budget year decreasing to $800,000 in 2027-28.
• The budget also includes a few general fund solutions to address projected budget falls when thinking
• CDCR is one of those departments and we did build into the budget 125 million dollars for the budget
• Proposition 36 passed overwhelmingly, yet this budget provides no path forward to implement it.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So being implemented in the read act.
• period as well as what implementation period as well as what our<00:04:27.199> implementation
• our implementation our implementation milestones<00:04:29.840> are<00:04:30.400> and<00
• look when they offer that implementation look when they offer that implementation support?
• Um, the increase to your state budget or, I'm sorry, to MDE's budget in the past two years.

Bills: HF2430, HF2433

Keywords: education finance, teacher training, Read Act, state aid, school funding, education funding, children with disabilities, transition aid, special education, school district consolidation, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The Governor's budget reflects $88 million in savings being allocated in the budget year. accruing from
• So, for the budget year, the savings... the reduction to the savings only reflects six months of implement
• As mentioned, the 24-25 budget includes the budget for this year, but going back to 24-25 includes a
• one next year Kern County would be budget year plus two PAHU would be budget year plus three.
• Various budget proposals. Including those to implement recently enacted legislation.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the May revision follows through with the governor's budget commitment to balance the budget over
• That would be budgeted as $25 million within CNRA's budget, $25 million within WCB's budget, and $75
• some context, the Governor's Budget assumed roughly $3.77 billion in both the current year and budget
• that program of implementation.
• Budgets are about prioritizing.

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• The House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget, water projects, non-water projects, the implementing
• Healthcare budget: the House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget.
• Justice: the House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget, back of the bill, and implementing
• , back of the bill, and implementing bill.
• The health care budget: the Senate accepts the House offer on proviso, back of the bill, implementing

Summary: The Budget Conference Committee met to exchange final offers between the House and Senate on the state budget. The discussion covered multiple budget areas, including Agriculture and Natural Resources, Health Care, Justice, Pre-K through 12 Education, Higher Education, State Administration and General Government, Transportation and Economic Development, Administered Funds, and PICO, along with related implementing bills, proviso language, supplemental funding lists, and the tax package (HB 7031E). Each chamber indicated acceptance of many of the other side’s bump offers and related items, including several bills tied to petroleum, retirement, prisons, collective bargaining, and higher education. No public testimony was taken; the chairs noted the offers had already been noticed to the public and declined to call individuals to explain them. After the exchange of offers, Senator Hooper moved to allow staff to make technical and conforming adjustments to the budget, conforming language, and tax package, and the motion was adopted without objection. The committee then closed with brief remarks from the chairs and adjourned, concluding the 2026 budget conference.

Transcript Highlights:

• Healthcare budget: The House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget.
• Justice: The House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget, back of the bill, and implementing
• , back of the bill, and implementing bill.
• The healthcare budget: The Senate accepts the House offer on proviso, The healthcare budget: The Senate
• This concludes our 2026 budget conference.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Healthcare budget: the House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget.
• Justice: the House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget, back of the bill, and implementing
• , back of the bill, and implementing bill.
• Healthcare budget: the Senate accepts the House offer on proviso, Healthcare budget: the Senate accepts
• This concludes our 2026 budget conference.

Summary: The Budget Conference Committee met to exchange final offers across the major budget areas, including agriculture and natural resources, healthcare, justice, K-12 education, higher education, state administration and general government, transportation and economic development, administered funds, and PICO. Both chambers largely accepted each other’s bump offers, proviso language, back-of-the-bill items, implementing bills, and several related bills, including measures tied to fuel taxes, petroleum, prisons, retirement, collective bargaining, taxation, and higher education. Each side also reviewed and accepted the other chamber’s supplemental funding list, while the House offered its supplemental funding list for consideration. No public testimony was taken; the chair noted the offers had been publicly noticed and would not be explained individually. After the exchange of offers, Senator Hooper moved to allow staff to make technical and conforming adjustments to the budget and tax package, and the motion was adopted without objection. The committee then closed with brief closing remarks and adjourned, concluding the 2026 budget conference.

Transcript Highlights:

• About 3% of our budget is now spent on grants, and 2% of our budget is spent on operations.
• I'm a director of budget policy and analysis at Minnesota Management and Budget.
• So what do we need to implement?
• So non-citizen implement them.
• um implementation timelines. um implementation timelines.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Please, I oppose and reject that budget cut.
• On behalf of CRDP, I oppose the 15.8 budget cut proposal. Thank you. the 15.8 budget cut proposal.
• , consistent with the 2023 Budget Act.
• , consistent with the 2023 Budget Act.
• To implement these new data requirements for PBMs, HCAI will build upon the successful implementation

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held an informational hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, focusing first on the Commission on Behavioral Health, then EMSA, and then the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). The Department of Finance said the state faces a third consecutive deficit and that the May Revision includes difficult trade-offs, including proposed eliminations or reversions of some behavioral health and public health funds. The LAO echoed concern about the structural deficit and said it was still awaiting some budget details before offering a full analysis. For the Commission on Behavioral Health, Finance proposed eliminating $20 million in Mental Health Wellness Act funds, arguing the money would help offset General Fund costs and noting future Proposition 1 innovation funding. The commission strongly opposed the cut, saying it would eliminate or delay launch-ready grants for early childhood supports, full-service partnerships, and peer respite, and would eventually end ongoing grant programming. Several advocates and commissioners testified that the funds support underserved communities and that Proposition 1 is not a substitute for the existing programs. The chair asked Finance to look for alternatives, but no vote was taken. EMSA presented mostly technical budget adjustments: increased authority for the California Poison Control System, a correction to EMSIS funding, and a reappropriation for enterprise services and data management. CDPH then reviewed a broader set of May Revision proposals, including reversions from the California Reducing Disparities Project, workforce development, STD prevention, hepatitis C prevention, hospice, and extreme heat funding, as well as a new generative AI pilot for health facility survey reporting. Members raised concerns about cuts to CRDP and gender health equity programs, especially because many grants are mid-contract and serve underserved communities; CDPH said the reversions were part of solving the deficit and that CRDP had been successful, while also clarifying that abortion.ca.gov would not be eliminated. Public comment was overwhelmingly opposed to the CRDP and related cuts, with many speakers describing the programs as life-saving and cost-effective. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The budget does that by leaving a positive SFEU balance of $4.5 billion in budget year 2026-27 and $2.1
• billion in budget year plus 1, 2027-28.
• This includes $25 million in CNRA's budget, $25 million in WCB's budget, and $75 million in the Coastal
• Conservancy's budget.
• budget window.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the May Revision from the Department of Finance and comments from the Legislative Analyst’s Office on the state’s overall budget condition and natural resources proposals. Finance said the May Revision keeps the budget balanced in 2026-27 and 2027-28, reduces the structural deficit, and includes major natural resources items such as Proposition 4 climate bond spending, including up to $125 million for the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, $23.2 million for wildlife refuge and wetland projects, $25 million for Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, $25 million for Bay-Delta environmental flows, $1 million for coexisting-with-wildlife work, and $2.5 million for cancer-risk research. The LAO said revenues remain strong but argued the budget still relies too heavily on reserves, recommended more savings and fewer new discretionary expenditures, and urged the Legislature to prioritize only urgent health and safety needs while planning for uncertainty in greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues. Members focused heavily on the Golden Gate Fields purchase, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, the wildlife coexistence initiative, and cap-and-invest funding for transit. On Golden Gate Fields, agency officials said the property is a time-limited, once-in-a-generation opportunity, that the state’s contribution would help secure the acquisition, and that the land would ultimately transfer to East Bay Regional Park District, which would assume operations and maintenance. Officials said the site would be remediated by the current owner, the state would use deed restrictions to prevent commercial development, and the remaining purchase price would be covered by nonstate partners. On Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, Finance and the Natural Resources Agency said the $25 million would support scientific monitoring and early implementation of the Bay-Delta plan update, while the LAO questioned the timing and said the request was premature until the Water Board formally adopts the plan. The committee also discussed the coexisting-with-wildlife proposal and wolf-livestock conflict. Finance said the May Revision’s $1 million proposal would backfill existing funds to support limited-term staffing, deterrence tools, and conflict response, while members and the California Cattlemen’s Association said the need is larger and includes direct loss compensation, indirect loss compensation, and nonlethal deterrence. The Cattlemen’s Association said private insurance is limited and often inadequate for these losses. Members also raised concerns about the greenhouse gas reduction fund and transit, warning that lower auction revenues and possible CARB rule changes could leave major transit and other tier-three priorities underfunded. The LAO recommended planning for multiple revenue scenarios and reconsidering the current cap-and-invest spending framework. No votes or formal actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• But there's also local implementation in terms of Proposition 1.
• Our partners are responsive; they put in a budget request, the budget comes through a couple months later
• So we're currently in budget year 25-26. That budget gets approved July 1, 2025.
• We're not looking at great budgets the next few years.
• So we've been in the budget three times.

Summary: The hearing focused on California’s 988 suicide and crisis lifeline and the broader crisis response system, with members and witnesses emphasizing both the system’s life-saving role and the risks posed by funding gaps, rising demand, and uneven local implementation. Opening remarks highlighted the personal impact of suicide and the need to strengthen crisis response so calls are answered quickly and linked to appropriate care rather than defaulting to 911, emergency rooms, or law enforcement. State officials described the AB 988 five-year implementation plan, which sets goals around public awareness, equitable access, high-quality call/chat/text response, and better integration with ongoing behavioral health services. State agencies reported progress on infrastructure, coordination, and related behavioral health investments. CalHHS said California has expanded mobile crisis teams, crisis stabilization units, and youth behavioral health supports, and is preparing additional public awareness and grant programs tied to Proposition 1. DHCS explained that 988 is funded through a federal SAMHSA grant and the AB 988 surcharge, while Medi-Cal separately funds mobile crisis services; officials said the mobile crisis benefit is active in 53 counties and that statewide expansion remains a work in progress. Cal OES described the statewide technical buildout, including network infrastructure in all 11 crisis centers, interoperability with 911, and a pilot of next-generation routing and call-handling tools. The 988 California Consortium said call volume continues to rise sharply, missed calls remain a major concern, text/chat capacity is limited, and centers need more stable funding, better reimbursement, and stronger feedback loops with the state. County and community witnesses stressed that local systems need more flexible, sustained support to match the demand. Lake County described a peer-led rural mobile crisis model that has reduced law enforcement holds and increased housing placements, but said county-run mobile crisis teams still cannot reliably access 988 surcharge dollars and face reimbursement problems from Medi-Cal and commercial plans. Santa Clara County reported strong performance metrics, rapid call answer times, and a broad continuum of mobile crisis services, but said staffing and funding are strained and commercial reimbursement remains slow. The Mental Health Association of San Francisco said the peer-run warm line complements 988 by offering non-emergency support and warm handoffs, but recent budget changes forced cuts to Spanish-language service, federation support, and hours. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; members mainly asked questions about surcharge levels, budget timing, coordination among agencies, data collection, and how to improve collaboration with frontline crisis centers.

Transcript Highlights:

• To implement the requirements of Section 94530, the Governor's budget includes $46.1 million for the
• To implement the requirements of Section 94540, the Governor's budget includes $227,000 in fiscal years
• We do have an active budget change proposal before you related to implementation of that law.
• bills that have been implemented.
• bills that have been implemented.

Summary: The hearing was an informational budget session on energy agency proposals, with no votes taken. Early discussion focused on Proposition 4 climate bond implementation, including funding for demand-side grid support, offshore wind development, and transmission financing. The Department of Finance said the budget includes allocations for demand-side grid support and offshore wind, but not yet for the $325 million transmission financing piece pending a required study. The Legislative Analyst’s Office urged the Legislature to consider whether to wait on offshore wind funding, whether to keep shifting funds into demand-side grid support, and how to direct future transmission financing. Members also raised concerns about local technical assistance for offshore wind, Salton Sea priorities, and the need for more information before final decisions. The California Energy Commission and CPUC then reviewed the broader energy package. The CEC highlighted the demand-side grid support program’s growth, distributed energy backup assets, long-duration storage, hydrogen grants, and the SIRP clean energy reliability program. CPUC testimony emphasized affordability, wildfire mitigation costs, rooftop solar cost shifts, and efforts to reduce rates while maintaining reliability and clean energy goals. Members questioned CPUC staffing, delays in proceedings, coordination with the CEC and CAISO, and the impact of rate increases on customers. The agencies also discussed the AB 3264 transmission financing study, with CPUC saying work on the study had already begun and was on track for the July 1 deadline. Several trailer bill and implementation items were also discussed. The committee reviewed a proposal to extend the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program surcharge, with members split over whether it should be handled in budget trailer bill language or policy legislation; the administration said the surcharge supports a critical program serving about three-quarters of a million Californians. The committee also heard a CPUC data-sharing proposal to allow nondisclosure agreements for transmission and reliability data, which members generally supported as a technical fix. DWR explained a proposal to clarify language for the Electricity Supply Strategic Reliability Reserve so it can potentially sell three gas-fired units it owns, and the CEC presented a federal transmission grant proposal tied to grid-enhancing technologies and ratepayer cost recovery. Finally, the committee discussed California Lifeline and possible broadband pilot reforms in light of uncertainty around federal Universal Service Fund support, with CPUC saying it is exploring a statewide standalone broadband option for eligible customers.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will start with our first issue with the Department of State Hospitals budget overview, budget change
• The 25-26 governor's budget proposes a total budget of $3.4 billion for the department, which is an increase
• We have had a decline in referrals since the implementation of SB 1323, which was implemented on January
• Our budget projections include...
• Shifting gears a little to provide an implementation update: Implementation of BH Connect is currently

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to move to issue number six, HCAI budget overview and general budget change proposal and
• HCAI's proposed budget for the budget year is $581 million, of which $702 million is.
• We are asking DMHC to provide a brief overview of its budget and 12 budget change proposals.
• Our total proposed budget is $25.25 million. Budget is $186 million and 800 authorized positions.
• Budget.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ... ...of the state budget.
• Because we budget not just on a one-year basis, as you've noted in this chart, we budget...
• I'm not presenting the Republican budget. He's presenting the governor's budget.
• help fund the budget.
• A balanced budget is important.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee met to review the governor’s fiscal 2027 budget presentation, with the chair repeatedly asking members to keep questions brief and avoid speeches. The discussion focused first on the overall revenue and spending outlook, including concerns from members that the executive forecast was more optimistic than the JLBC baseline and that the budget appeared to front-load revenue and expenditure growth. The governor’s budget team said the forecast was close to JLBC’s, that the budget was structurally balanced, and that differences were roughly $100 million per year on ongoing revenue. Members asked for follow-up calculations in writing, including the total multi-year gap and the amount of revenue enhancements above base revenues. A major portion of the meeting centered on tax and fee proposals tied to data centers, water use, and sports betting. The governor’s team defended eliminating the existing data center tax incentive as the removal of a loophole rather than a new tax, arguing the incentive had already succeeded in attracting major investment. They also described a proposed Department of Water Resources fee-setting authority for data centers to support a new Colorado River Protection Fund, and said the proposal would apply to existing and future facilities without a grandfather clause. Members raised concerns about fairness, competitiveness, and whether the changes would require a supermajority vote. The team also discussed increased sports betting fees, saying the revenue forecast did not include dynamic behavioral effects. The committee then moved through major spending areas, including corrections, public safety, border security, cybersecurity, K-12 education, Medicaid, and developmental disabilities. The governor’s budget includes ongoing funding to prevent correctional officer pay cuts, money to comply with prison health care court orders, probation funding, body-worn cameras, law enforcement staffing, fentanyl task forces, and cyber readiness grants. Members questioned the lack of funding for a prison oversight committee and asked for corrections spending totals over the administration. On border security, the executive said it was seeking about $759.7 million in federal reimbursement for border-related costs and that the governor had met with federal officials, including Secretary Noem and Tom Homan, about the request. In education, the budget proposes renewing Prop. 123, adding K-12 base funding, and issuing $1.5 billion in school facilities bonds over three years; members debated whether the proposal was appropriate and whether Prop. 123 revenues could support the debt service. The meeting also covered AHCCCS cost growth and federal HR1 impacts, with the executive warning of major coverage losses and hospital funding reductions, and DDD funding, where the governor’s team said the budget fully funds services and includes about $120 million in supplemental needs. No votes were taken; the meeting was a presentation and question-and-answer session only.