Transcript Highlights:

• As we see labor costs increasing, along with equipment costs, I want to caution that we have our federal
• That was recently allocated, the $2 million was recently allocated, and it's for the use of this school
• What we were tracking is trends in overall program costs and trying to look at where the overall costs
• The cost of beef in particular is going up, and if the rate is set now yet the actual cost goes up, are
• The cost of the program does change the cost for the schools, right?

Transcript Highlights:

• So we just ask for consideration of that $150,000 allocation. Thank you.
• Crow helped us evaluate the costs and the future of that program.
• So the total cost for this project... The total cost for this project is $92,352,300.
• Yeah, the total project costs are $92 million.
• So I think it's a matter of kind of lagging costs. Okay.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on State Administration heard a series of budget change proposals and trailer bill items, beginning with Housing and Community Development (HCD) requests. HCD sought permanent authority for seven existing temporary positions to support the HCD Connect IT system, and a separate proposal to fund implementation of eight 2025 housing-related laws with $4.2 million General Fund and 16 positions, plus $470,000 one-time General Fund. Members asked about how HCD Connect would interact with programs moving to the new Housing Development Finance Committee, and HCD also explained that the estimated cost to implement AB 1053 had been revised downward from about $6 million to $1.9 million because of shared implementation with CalHFA and the new committee structure. The committee also heard a Cal ICH proposal for $339,000 one-time General Fund to implement AB 678 on LGBTQ+ inclusive and culturally competent homelessness services, with testimony emphasizing data gaps and the need for a contract-based approach because HMIS cannot be changed unilaterally. The Department of Financial Protection and Innovation presented three continuation proposals: $15.34 million and 53 positions for the California Consumer Financial Protection Law program, $13.5 million and 51 positions for the Debt Collector Licensing Act program, and $49,000 ongoing for two positions in the broker-dealer/investment adviser education program. Members and the public raised concerns about the size and fairness of debt collector assessments and licensing fees, while DFPI explained the pro rata fee structure, the current license count, and how larger assessments fall on larger firms. Public testimony also supported retaining funding for the Student Loan Empowerment Network and requested funding for a franchise broker registration program. The committee also considered a mandate item involving suspension of a disclosure requirement related to property taxation, and trailer bill language from the Government Operations Agency to amend AB 91 on MENA demographic data collection, with the administration emphasizing data nondisclosure, protection of federal funding, and delayed implementation. The Secretary of State’s office then presented Help America Vote Act funding requests: $10.3 million for VoteCal maintenance and operations and $4.492 million for HAVA spending plans supporting voter education, training, accessibility, auditing, and county assistance. The office also requested $660,000 General Fund to implement AB 1392, which would make voter registration information for elected officials and candidates confidential, and explained the need to modify VoteCal and county election systems. The committee also heard requests to continue the Cal-Access Replacement System with $11.8 million General Fund and to continue the Notary Automation Program Replacement Project with $9.75 million from the Business Fees Fund. Members asked about total project costs, testing, data migration, and the expected November 2026 go-live date for Cal-Access replacement. Votes were taken on the vote-only items once quorum was established, and the committee approved the items considered. The final informational item was an overview from the California Arts Council, which highlighted the agency’s 50th anniversary, its statewide grantmaking, and the economic impact of arts funding. Council staff described Creative Corps, cultural districts, and the role of arts funding in local economies, while members and public witnesses urged increased support, including a request to raise local assistance grant funding to $50 million and to provide additional funding for cultural districts. Testimony emphasized the arts as economic infrastructure, community infrastructure, and a source of civic and cultural vitality across California.

Transcript Highlights:

• SOMETIMES THERE ARE ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO PROGRAM COSTS BECAUSE CERTAIN COSTS MAY BE RISING IN A CERTAIN
• THE COST FACTORS THAT I MENTIONED ARE REPRESENTED HERE.
• THE COST AND THE RURAL COMMUNITIES.
• BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN COST.
• >> THANK YOU WHEN IT THEY TALKED ABOUT COST FACTORS THEY TALKED WITH THE ACTUAL COST REPORTS AND WHAT

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• associated with the benefit cost-sharing provisions in H.R. 1.
• It allocates $40 million for fairground upgrades.
• So why does this proposal only allocate $2 million this year?
• Also, grateful for the Proposition 4 allocations.
• Also, grateful for the Proposition 4 allocations.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the September budget package, which included SB 105 and a series of trailer bills covering health, human services, education, resources, child care, transportation, labor, public safety, housing, revenue, background checks, collective bargaining, and a special election. The Department of Finance described the package as largely technical and clarifying, but also responsive to state and federal changes, especially H.R. 1. Key items included roughly $3.3 billion in Proposition 4 climate and environmental spending, $540 million in discretionary greenhouse gas reduction funds, and major responses to H.R. 1 such as CalFresh error-rate mitigation, food bank support, and Medicaid-related changes. Other notable provisions included vaccine policy flexibility, an Abortion Access Fund, a gender-affirming care program, community college basic-needs and aid changes, CEQA and coastal permit exemptions tied to the 2028 Olympics, invasive mussel prevention funding, a civic media program, labor and pension-related provisions, and special election administration changes. Members raised questions and concerns about several parts of the package. There was support for climate, water, transit, offshore wind, food security, and health investments, but also significant criticism of the lack of cleanup language for SB 131 and its advanced manufacturing exemptions, with multiple members saying promised fixes had not materialized and expressing concerns about tribal consultation, labor standards, and environmental protections. Members also questioned the scale and timing of some Proposition 4 allocations, including fairground upgrades, regional conveyance, and a UC Davis alternative protein research center. The Department of Finance said some programs would roll out over time and that certain funding levels reflected current implementation capacity. The hearing also featured discussion of Bay Area transit financing, with Finance saying SB 105 directs the department and CalSTA to examine loan or other financing options rather than immediately providing loans. Members and public commenters also discussed the state’s response to H.R. 1, with advocates supporting food bank, health care, and immunization provisions while warning of ongoing harm to immigrants, foster youth, and other vulnerable groups. Public testimony broadly supported the health, food, water, offshore wind, and golden mussel provisions, while many speakers echoed legislative concerns about SB 131 and urged cleanup action in the next session. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only, though the chair noted votes on the bills were expected later that night or the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, the cost of living varies from state to state.
• But California also has one of the highest cost of living.
• And when you do the cost-of-living adjustment, California's cost of living is about 42 percent above
• Their cost per student is $16,000, where our cost per student is coming closer to about $10,000.
• Their cost per student is $16,000, where our cost per student is coming closer to about $10,000.

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education met to hear the governor’s fiscal year 2026-27 budget recommendations for education from the Office of Policy and Budget and the Department of Education. Shelby Salmons and Commissioner Stasi Kamoutsis outlined the governor’s proposed $117.4 billion state budget, including about $32.5 billion for education, with major emphasis on public schools and early learning. The presentation highlighted a $30.6 billion K-12 budget, a $486 million VPK program, continued funding for VPK Summer Bridge, TEACH, HIPPY, and Help Me Grow, as well as increases for teacher pay, base student allocation, mental health, school safety, civics education, and school hardening initiatives. The commissioner also cited a 92.2% statewide graduation rate and Florida’s national rankings in education and education freedom. Senators used the question period to raise concerns about counselor staffing, mental health services, school closures, school choice oversight, the Guardian Program, data reporting, and school capacity. Senator Jones asked about counselor ratios, school closures in historically Black communities, and whether school choice schools are properly monitored for safety and instructional quality. Senator Osgood argued that mental health funding should support more clinical services on campuses, not just academic counselors, and Senator Bradley asked whether the centralized data repository includes scholarship students. Senator Gates praised the civics and debate funding and asked for more detail on the Guardian Program’s performance; the commissioner said 53 of 67 districts participate and described it as a successful safety option with sheriffs approving training. Senators Simon and Osgood also pressed for better use of the FISH report and more accurate space data to understand school capacity and right-sizing. During public testimony, Pinellas County School Board member Laura Hine said her district is an A-rated district with no D or F schools, but spends far more on safety and mental health than it receives in state categorical funding. She said Florida’s mental health staffing ratio is about one counselor per 2,203 students, compared with a recommended one per 1,106, and urged the committee to consider funding full-day VPK statewide, estimating it would cost about $375 million. Committee members followed up on her comments about local flexibility and whether districts can shift funds to meet needs. The meeting ended after members thanked DOE and executive branch staff for the presentation, and the committee adjourned without taking any substantive vote on legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is an estimate of 5 billion sales tax allocations and 1.3 billion sales tax allocations for the
• Inflation is a primary driver of cost. And some of the cost increases.
• The cost for providing services is increasing. Not that much, but the cost per, the cost.
• Ratios drive labor costs, and labor costs drive tuition.
• option at a cost of 1.57 million over the biennium with the projected out year costs of $160,000 annually

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• fund allocations or local government funding.
• A higher inflation means higher projected cost-of-living increases, higher costs compared to the current
• What I mean by that is annual cost-of-living increases cannot...
• If funding is based on assumptions that underestimate plan costs, long-term costs in the pension systems
• But conversely, if funding is based on assumptions that overestimate plan costs, long-term pension costs

Summary: The Pension Funding Council met on October 8 with introductions from council members and staff, then received a detailed presentation from the Office of the State Actuary on long-term economic assumptions and the state pension systems’ financial condition. OSA reported that the combined pension systems are currently 100% funded on a smoothed basis, with open plans above 95% funded, and that legacy Plan 1 systems remain on a path toward full funding under current policy. The actuaries recommended updating assumptions to 3% inflation, 3.5% general salary growth, and a 7.25% investment return, while keeping Plan 1 membership growth at 1%. They also explained asset smoothing, the role of recent strong investment returns, and the expected budget impacts of the recommended changes. Representatives from the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council and the State Investment Board offered supporting perspectives, generally describing the assumptions as reasonable and consistent with their own outlooks. The council also heard an overview of the Long-Term Services and Supports Trust Program (WACares) from DSHS and OSA. Program staff described the program’s social insurance structure, premium collection, benefit eligibility, and upcoming implementation milestones. OSA reported that the program’s first actuarial valuation showed a positive actuarial balance under the base scenario and recommended no change to the current 0.58% premium rate during the program’s early learning phase, noting that future changes would depend on experience and the program’s risk-management framework. OSA also said the recommendation would remain the same regardless of the outcome of the pending ballot measure affecting investment options. During public comment, a representative of the Washington State School Retirees Association urged continued work on Plan 1 funding and related legislation, while the Association of Washington Cities cautioned against increasing pension assumptions in a way that could raise future employer costs and reduce flexibility for current local government services. In action, the council adopted a motion to maintain the current long-term economic assumptions by a 4-2 vote, adopted the recommendation to keep the WACares premium rate at 0.58% by a 6-0 vote, and then elected Katie Chapman as council chair by unanimous vote. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• what the state costs are in order to help those communities finance those needs.
• The cost of delaying funding to address... ...design changes, and other factors.
• , increasing administrative costs, which are ultimately passed on to customers.
• rates with the true cost to serve.
• and necessary costs subject to challenge and review can be included in the rate base.

Bills: HB16, HB16, HB1618, HB2692, HB2712, HB2970, HB3609, HB3628

Keywords: judicial administration, court reform, juvenile diversion, court security, mental health services, drug offenses, constitutional amendments, water infrastructure, Texas Water Development Board, financial assistance, water supply projects, rural municipalities, water access assessment, aquifer storage, Edwards Aquifer, water injection, environmental regulations, groundwater management, San Antonio River, pollution control

Transcript Highlights:

• Lawyers cost money, Senator West, did you know that? No, I did not. Yeah. Hold on. Hold on.
• Senator Bettencourt came in with some of our costs a little bit higher than had expected.
• It's a much more conservative allocation to bonds and fixed income.
• That is a 1.7% allocation of the ESL toward the Future Fund.
• a Future Fund, and how much money should we allocate toward that.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the actuarial convention is that all of the member's contribution rate is allocated to the normal cost
• the actuarial convention is that all of the member's contribution rate is allocated to the normal cost
• the actuarial convention is that all of the member's contribution rate is allocated to the normal cost
• the actuarial convention is that all of the member's contribution rate is allocated to the normal cost
• The actuarial convention is that all of the member's contribution rate is allocated to the normal cost

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held an orientation for new and returning members of the House committee on agencies and administration, with introductions from members and staff. Chair Carol Maguire outlined her expectations for hearings: keep questions focused on the bill, be respectful to witnesses, and use the committee’s orientation opportunities to learn about the jail staff, retirement system, and Office of Professional Licensure. Members also discussed related assignments on other bodies, including the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules and the Joint Committee on Employee Classification, and noted that some members already serve on those panels. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on the State Building Code and the committee’s upcoming workload. Members explained how the state code is intended to provide a common baseline while allowing limited local options, and why municipalities must formally adopt and publish any local amendments. They reviewed several anticipated bills: a consolidation bill to gather building-code enforcement materials in one place, a bill to update the state energy code, a bill to restrict municipal adoption of building-code changes, and a bill to update the electrical code. Members also discussed how building codes apply to older homes and commercial buildings, and why code updates are important for safety and clarity. The chair said the committee had 36 bills currently scheduled, including many early bills that must move by March 6 because they will be heard by two committees. She said the committee would use subcommittees for harder bills, with three subcommittees this year: pensions, licensing, and likely state building code. She also outlined the hearing schedule, including lighter bills on February 12 and the expectation of executive sessions later in the month. No votes were taken during the orientation, but members were told that public hearings do not require a quorum and that hard copies of bills would be distributed by committee staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• about where dollars are are allocated about where dollars are are allocated and<00:16:02.520>
• significant<00:40:05.520> and Our utility costs are significant and Our utility costs are
• a lot of volatility in those costs. a lot of volatility in those costs.
• allocate those dollars when needed. allocate those dollars when needed.
• On average, our operating costs are around $150,000 per year for a variety of costs.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The other one is costing done by the department in terms of what is the actual cost.
• The other one is costing done by the department in terms of what is the actual cost.
• cost per pupil up. cost per pupil up.
• um costs and uh needs. um costs and uh needs.
• >> This bill allocates $80,000. >> This bill allocates $80,000.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is on cost-saving measures.
• Just on their own cost savings? But they're not really being asked to achieve cost savings.
• Just on their own cost savings? But they're not really being asked to achieve cost savings.
• This was a cost savings measure.
• Number two, cost-saving measures.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• And the cost to buy and rent a home in California, from groceries and just the cost of living, is exacerbating
• cost of capital, the cost of construction.
• of lumber is the cost of lumber.
• , legal fees, permit costs, and the like, as well as land costs.
• That's true for both labor costs and material costs.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• And that is a cost driver as well.
• Where does not come out of these 2 allocation?
• There is any ESE guaranteed allocation.
• Beyond that, the ESE guaranteed allocation.
• And those 2 years are going to cost us.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• civil matters I will say a recent cost civil matters I will say a recent cost benefit<00:31:14.039
• city to get reimbursed for health care costs and things like that.
• And then, as was also mentioned, the cost of dissemination.
• So the funding really is paying mostly the direct costs of what it costs to do research.
• really is paying mostly the direct costs really is paying mostly the direct costs of<01:27:15.679

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We just ask for consideration of that $150,000 allocation. Thank you.
• the fee. ...helped us evaluate the costs and the future of that program.
• This mandate is estimated to cost $42,000 in 2026–27 and $8,000 in 2027–28.
• Yeah, the total project costs are $92 million.
• So I think it's a matter of kind of lagging costs. Okay.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on State Administration heard a series of budget proposals and informational items, beginning with the Department of Housing and Community Development’s HCD Connect system. HCD requested permanent authority for seven existing temporary positions to maintain and expand the system, and also sought funding and positions to implement eight 2025 housing-related bills. Members asked about how HCD Connect will interact with programs moving to the new Housing Development Finance Committee and about the revised implementation cost for AB 1053, which HCD said had dropped from about $6 million to $1.9 million because of shared infrastructure with HDFC and CalHFA. The committee also heard Cal ICH’s request for $339,000 to implement AB 678 on LGBTQ+ inclusive and culturally competent homelessness services, with testimony emphasizing the need for better data and training for a population disproportionately affected by homelessness and discrimination. The Department of Financial Protection and Innovation presented three continuation proposals: funding for the California Consumer Financial Protection Law program, the Debt Collector Licensing Act program, and the broker-dealer/investment adviser continuing education program. Members and public commenters focused heavily on the debt collector licensing fees, the number of licensees, and whether assessments were too high compared with other states; DFPI explained that fees are set on a pro rata basis tied to net proceeds and that the workload remains substantial. Public testimony also supported DFPI’s student loan assistance work and raised a separate request for franchise broker registration funding. The committee then took up a mandate suspension item, voting to suspend a new disclosure mandate related to deferred property taxation, and heard trailer bill language from the Department of Finance on AB 91/MENA data collection, aimed at protecting federal funding, ensuring non-disclosure, and allowing more time for implementation. The Secretary of State presented Help America Vote Act funding for VoteCal and the HAVA spending plan, as well as the Cal-Access Replacement System (CARS), the Notary Automation Program Replacement Project (NAP 2.0), and AB 1392 on confidential voter registration for elected officials and candidates. Members asked about project costs, timelines, user testing, and data migration; the Secretary of State said VoteCal funds would be exhausted in 2027–28, CARS is targeted for completion by November 2026, and AB 1392 would require system modifications and new confidentiality procedures. The committee also heard an informational overview from the California Arts Council, which described its 50th anniversary, the economic impact of arts funding, and the cultural districts program; public testimony strongly urged increasing Arts Council grant funding from $24 million to $50 million and adding support for cultural districts. Throughout the hearing, the committee took multiple vote-only actions approving the items before it, with votes recorded on the HCD, Cal ICH, DFPI, HAVA, CARS, NAP 2.0, and AB 1392 proposals, while some items were held open or discussed without a quorum at earlier points in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• does not carry a cost. does not carry a cost.
• that also does not carry a cost. that also does not carry a cost.
• It has a one-time cost of 100.8 million. It has a one-time cost of 100.8 million.
• <00:09:19.000> of uh to reimburse cities for the costs of uh to reimburse cities for the costs
• c> Including geographic allocation language Including geographic allocation language with<01:02:21.560

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The minimum cost to start a desalination project or the minimum cost to develop a small pipeline network
• If we did a civil engineering cost analysis of a standard water project.
• A supply project, what would be the cost breakdown between materials, labor, and design?
• I do know that material costs for all my civil engineers' projects have been affected.
• We are in support of H.J.R. 7 and the 8% allocation.

Bills: HB3077, HJR2, HJR7, HJR7

Keywords: alcohol, taxation, reporting requirements, sales, distribution, death tax, inheritance tax, estate tax, property transfer, constitutional amendment, water fund, Texas water supply, state revenue, infrastructure, HJR 7, Texas Legislature, quorum, majority quorum, two-thirds quorum, legislative procedure

Transcript Highlights:

• Rising special education costs, some increases in non-personnel costs like insurance and utilities, and
• for the cost borne by schools.
• The LCFF and SCFF include cost-of-living adjustments well above and beyond what the estimated cost of
• cost of this would be.
• it cost to run it.

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.