Transcript Highlights:

• with general revenues, federal funds, and various program support.
• It's funded with general revenue, federal funds, and various program support.
• It's funded with general revenues, federal funds, and various programs support, and does fund the people
• It's funded with general revenues, federal funds, and various program support.
• It's funded with general revenue, federal funds, and various program support.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Issue one, federal funds.
• TWC started this program with federal funds years ago, but those federal funds must be redirected. to
• That is a program that's funded by the federal government, the Department of Health. of labor, and I
• I mean, do you have to have legis— to continue this program if it's not funded at the federal level?
• We had sufficient federal funds that continue to program into that next year. year.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• “A justification to the federal government for additional federal funding for federal fiscal year 2025
• This is a state- and federally funded child nutrition program designed to provide nutritious meals and
• I want to see these programs funded.
• broader APS program funding.
• The Vocational Rehabilitation Program, as you may be aware, is 80% funded by the federal government.

Keywords: 988, house, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• On the positive side, the Federal Highway Formula Programs received approximately 90 percent of the funding
• In Georgia, about 80% of our capital maintenance program is from the IIJ formula programs, and 90% federal
• Look at sort of the top line of funding by a federal program over the life of a transportation bill and
• Many of our products are funded through federal funds. They aren't all.
• We count on the federal funding reimbursement on a weekly basis to move... our funds forward so that,

Keywords: Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, IIJA, bipartisan infrastructure, funding flexibility, NEPA, environmental reviews, bureaucratic delays, federal funding, infrastructure investment

Summary: The committee meeting focused on the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, discussing the ongoing implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Chairman Capito highlighted the bipartisan nature of the legislation and the necessity of refining existing provisions to ensure effective delivery of transportation projects. Notable emphasis was placed on the need for flexibility in funding to address inflation impacts and delays caused by bureaucratic hurdles, especially relating to environmental reviews under NEPA. Witnesses from state transportation agencies provided valuable insights into real-world challenges faced in project execution, ultimately underscoring the importance of continuous federal support for infrastructure development. The discussion also touched on the broader implications of federal funding freezes by the previous administration, which have reportedly hindered several ongoing and planned projects. This issue raised significant concern among committee members, who urged the need for reliable funding and the removal of unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles that could cause delays in project implementation. The meeting concluded with a commitment from the members to work collaboratively to overcome these challenges and ensure a smooth path forward for critical infrastructure investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:21:46.720> federal program the chip program the federal program the chip program the federal
• This slide shows program long-term care programs that are state-funded.
• :59.360> state<00:32:59.760> funded care programs that are state funded care programs that
• <00:35:59.800> as federal older American act funding as federal older American act funding
• > administered federal program that's administered federal program that's administered through<01

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met for an introductory overview of its jurisdiction and staff roles. Nonpartisan House Research and House Fiscal staff explained that they draft bills and amendments, prepare bill summaries and background research, answer legal and fiscal questions, and help track revenue and budget effects. They also distributed a Budget Overview Brief intended to condense the larger budget materials into a more usable format for members. Staff then walked through the Human Services budget and the committee’s areas of responsibility. They described the department structure, noting that DHS oversees administration, compliance, rulemaking, and county support, and that the overall Human Services budget is large, with medical assistance as the dominant program. They also explained recent and upcoming reorganizations: many children and family-related functions are moving to the new Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Direct Care and Treatment is becoming its own agency, and some homelessness-related functions remain at DHS. Staff reviewed how the budget is organized by program and budget activity, the difference between direct appropriations and standing appropriations, and how forecasted programs and “tails” work in the budget process. The presentation also covered Medicaid financing and long-term care. Staff explained the federal-state FMAP match, including Minnesota’s current 51.16% federal match for most Medicaid spending, the CHIP match, and the 90% federal share for the expansion population. For long-term care, they outlined Medical Assistance services for elderly and disabled people, state-funded long-term care supports, and Board on Aging programs. They highlighted the personal care assistance program’s phaseout and replacement by Community First Services and Supports, and reviewed the five home- and community-based waivers. Members asked one question about refugee resettlement funding, specifically whether it covers flights; staff said they would need to follow up on the exact use of the federal funds. No bills were heard, and no formal votes or other committee actions were taken during this meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:00:05.559> laws programs uh Federal Social Security laws programs uh Federal Social Security
• implemented on the federal funding implemented on the federal funding and<01:19:55.600> the<01
• Worse is knowing that the programs throughout the state rely on federal funding and the disastrous impact
• federal funds I think conversation about federal funds I think we<01:37:10.480> we<01:37:10.600
• on federal funding and the rely on federal funding and the disastrous<01:37:51.920> impact<01:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Health and Human Services committee heard a presentation from Department of Children, Youth, and Families Commissioner Tiki Brown on the department’s 2025 budget and transition plans. Brown said the governor’s budget pairs targeted reductions with modest investments, resulting in net general fund savings, while preserving core safety-net programs. Major proposals included funding for program integrity, modernization of the child welfare SSIS system, compliance changes for the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), operating adjustments, and a transition account reallocation as the new department continues moving programs from other agencies through July 1, 2025. A large portion of the discussion focused on CCAP fraud prevention and oversight. Brown and Assistant Commissioner Diane Hy explained that the proposed statewide electronic attendance recordkeeping system would replace retroactive paper-based attendance reporting with more timely data, making it harder to falsify attendance and claim payments improperly. Brown also said the department is working with the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General and other partners on compliance and fraud controls. Senators pressed for more detail on current enforcement, whether payments can be withheld for violations, and whether recent media reports showed gaps in oversight; Brown said payments can be stopped for false attendance records, suspended or revoked licenses, or fraud allegations, but not for health and safety violations alone. The committee also reviewed other budget-neutral policy changes, including expanding permanency support services for relative foster care and tribal equivalents, strengthening tribal child welfare grants, updating TEACH scholarship rules for early childhood educators, and adjusting the Great Start Compensation Support Payment Program to create a special revenue fund and extend a 10% payment increase to tribally licensed programs and programs on tribal reservation land. Brown also described a $1.5 million annual reduction to restorative practices grants, leaving a smaller ongoing base. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So reductions to federal funding for nutrition programs would likely make it difficult to continue reducing
• The Federal Emergency Food Assistance Program, or TFAP, provides administrative funds and USDA foods
• Thanks to Farms Together, a federally funded program through the USDA Local Food Purchasing Assistance
• For one, the Farms Together program is federally funded and has already been stopped and restarted this
• and state cuts to funding programs.

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on food insecurity in California and how state and federal nutrition programs, agricultural production, and food distribution systems intersect. Assemblymembers emphasized that many Californians, including farmworkers, seniors, children, and communities of color, remain food insecure despite California’s agricultural abundance. Panelists and members discussed CalFresh, WIC, school meals, Sun Bucks, food banks, and the impact of federal policy changes, including possible nutrition cuts, tariffs, and immigration enforcement, on access to food and the agricultural workforce. Secretary Karen Ross described CDFA programs aimed at improving access to fresh food and supporting local agriculture, including the senior farmers’ market program, California Nutrition Incentive Program, Healthy Refrigeration Grant Program, Community Food Hubs, Farm to School, urban agriculture, and a proposed tribal food sovereignty program. She said these efforts help connect local producers to consumers, expand healthy food access, and build infrastructure such as refrigeration, mobile markets, and aggregation hubs. Department of Social Services Deputy Director Alexis Fernandez Garcia outlined CalFresh, CFAP, Sun Bucks, CACFP, emergency food programs, and tribal nutrition assistance, noting that CalFresh and related programs significantly reduce poverty and food insecurity, but participation gaps remain for non-English speakers, some Asian American communities, and undocumented households. PPIC researcher Tess Thorman presented data showing that 13% of California households experienced food insecurity in 2023, with higher rates among households with children and Latino, Black, and other households. She said nutrition programs reduce poverty and food hardship, but federal rules, income thresholds, immigration restrictions, and high living costs limit their reach. Members asked about simplifying applications, improving call center access, increasing outreach in multiple languages, and adjusting benefits for inflation. Officials said the state has used available federal options to streamline enrollment, improve customer service, and target outreach, but many core rules and benefit levels are set federally. The second panel shifted to food production and market access. A farmer, a UC food systems leader, and a produce distributor described efforts to connect small and medium farms with food banks, schools, universities, and Medi-Cal food-as-medicine programs. They highlighted programs such as Farms Together, the USDA Southwest Regional Food Business Center, Farm to School, food hubs, and climate-smart infrastructure grants as ways to create stable markets for local growers while improving food access. Speakers also raised concerns about land tenure, consolidation, regulatory burdens, labor constraints, and the loss of federal funding, and members discussed whether state investments and Prop. 4 funds could help sustain and expand these efforts.

Transcript Highlights:

• and our Congress are proposing to do us harm via historic cuts to federally funded health care programs
• For the WIC program, it's primarily from federal WIC grant funds, and this represents a $31.5 million
• Half of our funding for our programs is state-funded when federal funding is at risk.
• And outside of federal funding matching grants.
• In the event that the federal funds do decrease in any of these programs, it's going to be really important

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• state or philanthropic sources, meaning that without the federal funding in the BRIC program, they will
• We were asked to provide an update on the status of federal Victims of Crime Act funding.
• unspent funds from prior years to address the gap by decreasing federal funds.
• unspent funds from prior years to address the gap by decreasing federal funds.
• And last fiscal year, through these funds, we served... ...victim assistance program funds.

Summary: The committee heard a broad public safety budget hearing focused on youth justice funding, probation incentive grants, and disaster response and recovery. On the youth justice item, the Office of Youth and Community Restoration described a proposed change to the JJRBG funding formula that would shift resources away from a DJJ-based measure and toward county youth population, serious offenses, and step-down placements in less restrictive programs. Members asked about data on Native American youth; OYCR said statewide data are limited, but its SYTF data show about 1% of youth in secure youth treatment facilities were Native in 2024. The Department of Finance had no objections, and the item was discussed as a way to support alternatives to long-term incarceration. The committee then reviewed the community corrections performance incentive program for county probation departments. The Department of Finance proposed stabilizing the program with a maintenance payment, updating the performance baseline, and adding a growth factor; the LAO agreed the formula needed changes but recommended using 2022-23 data instead of 2021-23, using marginal rather than average cost assumptions, rejecting the growth payment and minimum guarantee, and adding stronger oversight through the BSCC. Finance said it was open to some technical changes but opposed a new BSCC audit framework, noting Judicial Council already surveys probation departments and that evidence-based practice use has increased over time. Members and staff indicated the proposal still needed further work. A major portion of the hearing focused on the January 2025 Southern California wildfires and state disaster response. A resident of Altadena gave emotional testimony about evacuation failures, loss of home, and the need for accountability. LAO and Cal OES outlined the disaster response and recovery system, including mutual aid, alert and warning, debris removal, FEMA and state funding streams, and the long timeline for reimbursement. Cal OES said it had pre-positioned resources, temporarily took over the county’s wireless emergency alert function for about three weeks, coordinated debris removal and recovery operations, and had already allocated more than $286 million in state funds. Officials also discussed the 100% federal cost share for emergency work for 180 days and the uncertainty created by changing federal processes and the cancellation of the BRIC resilience program. The committee also heard two smaller Cal OES items: a request to reappropriate about $22 million for the law enforcement mutual aid reimbursement program, which the LAO said should be placed in statute with clearer goals and reporting, and an update on Victims of Crime Act funding, where Cal OES said federal VOCA allocations have fallen sharply and that roughly $224 million would be needed to maintain current service levels if federal funding does not improve. Public comment included a request for funding to expand datacasting and emergency alert receivers for wildfire and earthquake warning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker, gentlemen, it's a federal program. I would, Mr.
• Federal programs that could be modified include things like TRICARE, the VA system, other federal programs
• , and other federal health care programs.
• mix of state and federal funds.
• While that program is no longer in effect, I believe the federal source of the federal funding for that

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the assistant program budget manager for the department's federal funds accountability and cost tracking
• Department of Agriculture programs, and it increases funding for various USDA programs, including the
• funding and state funding. because of this. through a blend of federal funding and state funding.
• funding, including unanticipated and unexplained funding reductions and restrictions on key federal
• , but it also makes you more reliant on federal funding.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund, the Health Plan Improvement Trust Fund, the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Fund, federal reimbursement
• So it's $50,000 federal fund, $100,000 General Fund for the last four years or so.
• And there will be remaining federal funds. Okay.
• award in the event of a federal funding lapse.
• The program, which is our largest program that we oversee at DOR, is 80% funded by the federal government

Keywords: 987, senate, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• with general revenues, federal funds, and various program support.
• It's funded with general revenue, federal funds, and various program support.
• from general revenue, federal funds, and various program support.
• with general revenue, federal funds, and various program support.
• It's funded with general revenues, federal funds, and various program support.

Summary: The committee heard a series of Arkansas Department of Human Services budget presentations and questions, beginning with the Secretary’s Office and then the Division of Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health Services. Staff described the divisions’ appropriations, funding sources, and major programs, including senior centers, Meals on Wheels, mental health grants, substance abuse treatment, community alcohol safety, the Medicaid tobacco settlement program, and crisis stabilization units. Members raised concerns about flat or limited funding for senior services, the use and tracing of federal block grants, the lack of a funding source for the veterans’ mental health grant, and the mechanics of the community alcohol safety and treatment programs. The committee also discussed patient benefits funds at state facilities, transportation for senior center clients, and whether some special-language appropriations or fund balances should be revisited. Executive recommendations were adopted for the divisions considered. The committee then reviewed the Division of Children and Family Services and the Division of County Operations. Questions focused on foster care growth, adoption subsidies, professional fees tied to staff training and onboarding, vacancies, the Children’s Trust Fund, and TANF subgrants. Members asked about the reduction or elimination of TANF funding to child advocacy centers and other subgrantees, and DHS explained that prior reserves had been spent down and that the department was now trying to live within the annual TANF block grant and rebuild reserves. County operations questions also covered summer EBT, SNAP employment and training, the farmers’ market program, and the expected impact of a federal SNAP administrative match change, which DHS estimated would increase state costs by about $24 million annually, with roughly $18 million affecting the current year because the change begins October 1. Executive recommendations were again adopted. Finally, the committee heard from the Division of Developmental Disability Services and the Division of Medical Services. DDS testimony covered vacancies, staffing shortages, human development center construction and repairs, the reopening of the Boonville work training program, and funding for infant infirmary and child/family life programs. Medical Services testimony covered the Medicaid program, the current FMAP rate, the Our Kids B CHIP program, Medicaid payments to schools, nursing home distress funding, and large appropriation lines used to provide flexibility for claims and potential facility closures. Members asked for more detail on school Medicaid payments, reserve balances, and why some appropriations were much larger than actual spending. In each division, the committee moved and adopted Executive REC after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• These one-time federal funds support the Golden State Teacher Grant Program for the 2026-27 academic
• Instead, existing federally funded programs are being shifted into Proposition 98 to make room for this
• funding to implement this program.
• First, the administration is providing one-time funding, though the federal program is ongoing and much
• First, the administration is providing one-time funding, though the federal program is ongoing and much

Keywords: 987, senate, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• MinnesotaCare is funded, um, it's our state's federal BHP program, and we get federal funding based on
• MinnesotaCare is funded, um, it's our state's federal BHP program, and we get federal funding based on
• MinnesotaCare is funded, um, it's our state's federal BHP program, and we get federal funding based on
• MinnesotaCare is funded, um, it's our state's federal BHP program, and we get federal funding based on
• funding, and is entirely federally funded. year on Grant programs um about one year on Grant programs

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• One, in the MIP program, a greater share of people projected to receive state-funded versus federally
• fund, and the healthcare access fund funds its programs by about $1.3 billion.
• MinnesotaCare receives a lot of federal funding to run that program through our BHP funding, and I'll
• We also have a significant amount of federal funds through that program.
• um a lot of federal funding to run<00:14:07.760> that<00:14:08.000> program<00:14:08.240

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• with general revenues, federal funds, and various program support.
• It's funded with general revenue, federal funds, and various program support.
• with general revenues, federal funds, and various program support.
• with general revenue, federal funds, and various program support.
• It's funded with general revenues, federal funds, and various program support.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, are those programs, the federal free and reduced lunch program and our state farm to school program
• funded under the National School Lunch Program.
• funding was federal to federal.
• Uh, when we look at that federal grant funding for those..." "...federal grant funding for those districts
• And I believe there's other federal funding that would increase... ...federal funding that would increase

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, the repair portion of the program is where the federal funds that are available through
• Turning to page 12, item eight. is significantly federally funded programs.
• I just really want to briefly mention just a couple of. of our federally funded programs.
• are not federally funded are cost recovery programs.
• Federal funds, so the child nutrition programs that we're operating are federally funded, so there's

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in total federal funds. funds.
• As we can see, the energy community revitalization program is the bulk of federal funds.
• Due to federal regulations, most administrative costs for this program can't be federally funded, which
• Item 8 is significantly federally funded programs.
• is that federal funds yes sir So our SRF programs.

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