Transcript Highlights:

• proposals.
• There's a new proposal here.
• Is this just for proposals?
• , May Revision proposal.
• Many of them reflected in this budget proposal, May Revision proposal.

Summary: The committee heard the May Revision presentation for the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, with public comment focused heavily on K-12 priorities such as universal school meals, kitchen infrastructure, food service and custodial support, youth leadership grants, Special Olympics funding, English learner support, universal pre-K, literacy investments, and concerns about community college funding shifts. Speakers also urged support for expanded learning, teacher recruitment and training, and maintaining or increasing funding for community colleges and student support programs. Finance and the LAO then reviewed the Proposition 98 outlook. Finance said the May Revision lowers the 2025-26 Prop. 98 guarantee to $114.6 billion, about $4.3 billion below January, due mainly to lower revenue estimates, with smaller effects from attendance and property tax changes. The administration also described rebenching for universal transitional kindergarten and a one-time rebench tied to Los Angeles fire-related property tax losses, along with changes to the Public School System Stabilization Account, deferrals, and updated COLA assumptions. The LAO said the budget relies too much on deferrals and one-time funds, creates a structural shortfall, and should instead align ongoing spending with the guarantee and preserve a reserve buffer. Members questioned the TK rebench and the shift of funding from community colleges to K-12, asking why it was being applied retroactively and how colleges would be held harmless. Finance said the changes align funding with where TK costs are being incurred and that reappropriation funding and other adjustments would offset impacts on community colleges. The LAO argued the historical split formula is outdated and should be abandoned in favor of budgeting around current priorities rather than fixed percentages. Members also raised concerns about draining the rainy day reserve and using deferrals, while the LAO said preserving reserves would better protect against future volatility. The committee then moved to specific K-12 and education proposals. Finance outlined May Revision changes including state operations adjustments for the Department of Education, technical trailer bill changes, a $100 million student teacher stipend program administered by Kern County, and updates to the charter school facility grant program. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposed increases for expanded learning, literacy coaches, and the student teacher stipend as currently structured, while supporting the minimum grant increase for expanded learning. Members expressed support for teacher recruitment efforts but questioned whether one-time funding can sustain ongoing programs and whether the student teacher stipend should be targeted to shortage areas or low-income communities.

Transcript Highlights:

• DSH also proposes to reappropriate up to $6.3 million from 2025-26 and proposes provisional language
• under the Governor's proposal.
• But as noted, with this proposal, this is a starting point for this proposal.
• But as noted, you know, with this proposal, this is a starting point for this proposal.
• We have no proposals.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Next proposal is also a governor's proposal.
• Next proposal is also a governor's proposal.
• Next proposal is also a governor's proposal.
• Next proposal is also a governor's proposal.
• Next proposal is also a governor's proposal.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So is this proposed... And is this proposal from BHSA to have that come from BHSA?
• The California Alliance proposes the proposed reduction to the... services.
• But as noted, with this proposal, this is a starting point for this proposal.
• But as noted, with this proposal, this is a starting point for this proposal.
• We have no proposals.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Basically what would happen is individuals under the DHCS proposal and our proposal: DHCS would keep
• Just to reiterate that because this proposal is actually a proposal to add funding to keep people on
• proposals.
• proposals, we understand this proposal not to be a fundamental change from what was proposed in January
• proposed in the January budget.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• K-12 proposals in the morning session.
• time proposals.
• in funding proposed for rate 2.
• Is this just for proposals?
• And so, and we have other proposals, whether it's the news proposal, scholars proposal, which have demonstrated

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This proposal continues.
• They are policy proposals, but also fiscal proposals.
• So this proposal does correlate to the January Governor's budget proposal.
• And this proposal essentially is part of a set of proposals in order... ...and this proposal essentially
• Yeah, the proposal is for the CWDA proposal for $20 million ongoing.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Human Services proposals in Part 2.
• The January budget proposed...
• proposals.
• proposals, we understand this proposal not to be a fundamental change from what was proposed in January
• proposed in the January budget.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay. particular proposal.
• Of course, as we've referenced, the IHSS proposal is conforming to the Medi-Cal proposal.
• What is the proposed...
• it comes to those proposals?
• to this proposal as well.

Summary: The hearing began with opening remarks on the Governor’s May Revision for child care and human services, with committee members and advocates stressing that the budget should not be balanced on the backs of low-income families, children, and providers. Legislative members and public witnesses strongly opposed the proposed suspension of the child care COLA, reductions to the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program, and the lack of codified rate reform tied to the alternative methodology. Several speakers also urged more support for providers affected by the Eaton fire and other disasters, and called for child care to be funded at the true cost of care and for additional slots to be restored. Administration, LAO, and Department of Education staff described the child care proposal as maintaining existing funding levels while adding administrative resources to prepare for federally required prospective payment changes and single-rate reform. The administration said the May Revision would suspend the 2025–26 COLA and reduce Bridge Program funding to align with utilization, while the LAO raised questions about the size and purpose of the proposed rate-reform and prospective-payment funding and recommended rejecting a Department of Technology exemption. CDE supported continued early education investments but said it would need additional resources if prospective pay were extended to state preschool, and it objected to a proposed reallocation of preschool funds for inclusive education grants. The committee then moved to the IHSS portion of the May Revision. DSS outlined five major proposals: capping provider work hours at 50 per week, eliminating IHSS for undocumented adults age 19 and older, shifting certain Community First Choice reassessment penalties to counties, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test as a conforming IHSS reduction, and automating the termination of IHSS when Medi-Cal eligibility ends. DSS also discussed funding to implement a federal HCBS access rule and a separate reassessment of IHSS administrative methodology that found counties would need additional administrative funding. Finance said the proposals were intended to slow program growth and improve sustainability, while the LAO said it was still analyzing the package and raised concerns about implementation, county workload, and the potential loss of services. Committee members and public commenters criticized the IHSS cuts, especially the overtime cap and the elimination of services for undocumented adults and people affected by the asset test. Advocates argued that IHSS workers and recipients depend on these services, that county administration is already underfunded, and that the proposals could destabilize vulnerable consumers. The chair closed by saying the committee would continue to fight for child care and would not pause on child care, and the meeting recessed before moving on to the remaining May Revision items.

Transcript Highlights:

• , Proposition 35 and the proposed spending plan, and Proposition 56 in the proposed budget solutions.
• With regard to general eligibility and benefits cost containment proposals, we are proposing no sooner
• So we are proposing—so that’s really for 2025. For 2026, we are proposing uniform...
• Specificity in the measure or in the administration's proposal? The administration's proposal.
• What would your advice be to this legislature about this proposal, the specific proposal?

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held the first of several hearings on the Governor’s May Revision for health care, with opening remarks focused on the state’s projected $12 billion deficit, looming federal Medicaid changes, and the potential impact on Medi-Cal, public health, reproductive health, and safety-net providers. Several members criticized the proposal as balancing the budget on vulnerable Californians, while others defended the need for cost containment and questioned the administration’s assumptions. The chair set ground rules for respectful, focused questioning and outlined three topics: the Medi-Cal proposals, Proposition 35, and Proposition 56. DHCS Director Michelle Baas presented the May Revision’s Medi-Cal package, saying the department’s budget totals $200.6 billion overall, including $45.2 billion General Fund, and that the proposals are intended to address rising caseloads, pharmacy costs, and managed care spending. She described proposed changes for adults with unsatisfactory immigration status, including a freeze on new full-scope enrollment for those 19 and older, $100 monthly premiums beginning in 2027, elimination of adult dental and long-term care coverage, removal of PPS/RAP payments to FQHCs and rural health clinics for that population, and a pharmacy rebate aggregator. Other proposals included eliminating certain OTC drug classes, removing GLP-1 coverage for weight loss, prior authorization and step therapy changes, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test, eliminating acupuncture as an optional benefit, allowing utilization management for hospice, raising the managed care minimum medical loss ratio to 90%, reducing PACE capitation rates toward the midpoint of the actuarial range, eliminating the skilled nursing facility workforce and quality incentive program, and suspending the SNF backup power requirement. The LAO said the revised Medi-Cal spending estimate is about $2.5 billion higher than the Governor’s Budget in the budget year, and that the increase appears driven more by higher per-enrollee costs than by caseload alone. The LAO said the budget solutions are concentrated in a few areas, are largely ongoing, and should be considered in light of federal uncertainty, but suggested the Legislature could explore alternatives such as more targeted income thresholds for the undocumented expansion and simpler asset-test rules. Department of Finance officials said the proposals are difficult but necessary to address a third consecutive deficit and rising Medi-Cal costs. Members then pressed the administration on the methodology and impacts of the proposals, especially the enrollment freeze, premiums, asset test, hospice controls, PACE reductions, and the elimination of benefits and provider payments. No votes or formal actions were taken at this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Revision proposals, including changes to the Medi-Cal program that are being proposed.
• And then, finally, in regards to proposals related to unsatisfactory immigration status, we are proposing
• We oppose the proposal.
• Now moving on to the May revision proposal: the governor proposes to eliminate supplemental payments
• What would your advice be to this legislature about this proposal, the specific proposal?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• has on the top that says proposed has on the top that says proposed sections<00:02:48.640> for
• <00:03:18.480> is So on line one there uh the proposal is So on line one there uh the proposal
• On line four, the proposal is to date.
• On line 17, the proposal is to vote.
• <00:15:23.680> sections elections provisions proposed sections elections provisions proposed

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The State and Local Government and Elections Conference Committee met on May 13, 2025, to adopt agreed-upon provisions from the elections article. The chair noted they initially lacked a quorum on both sides, but later confirmed quorum was present. Members and staff walked through a grid of proposed sections, covering voter registration and student proof-of-residence rules, public voter information list deadlines, electronic rosters for combined polling places, absentee ballot procedures, candidate filing and ballot preparation notices, write-in candidate timelines, municipal boundary adjustments, emergency polling place signage, county election training, special election filing periods for legislative vacancies, school district election timing, voting system testing, town elections, hospital board elections, and repeal of the voting equipment grant account. Several items were described as technical or clarifying changes, including wording fixes, consistency edits, and updated effective dates, with many provisions set to take effect January 1, 2026. One item, line 15, involving a cannabis-related provision, was set aside because an amendment had not been posted and printed in time; members agreed to take it up later. The committee also discussed a mix of House-only and Senate-only provisions, including third-party presidential electors, phonetic spelling on affidavits of candidacy, notification of ballot preparers when candidate names change, emergency polling place procedures, training requirements, and rules for temporary polling places on tribal land. After the staff walkthrough and brief questions, Vice Chair Aldenorf moved to adopt the provisions in the document titled “Elections Provisions Proposed Sections for Adoptions, May 13, 2025,” excluding line 15, and include them in the conference committee report. The motion passed on a voice vote with no opposition recorded. The committee then adjourned, with members noting that work on remaining elections provisions could continue afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• payments for provider proposals, how those total costs were arrived at and what activities those proposals
• This is a proposal.
• to that. this proposal as well.
• There's a capital outlay proposal.
• This is not a victimless proposal.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• budget proposal information on.
• proposals.
• On behalf of CRDP, I oppose the 15.8 budget cut proposal. Thank you. the 15.8 budget cut proposal.
• Our next budget change proposal is for the BH Connect proposal and the workforce proposals therein.
• proposal, do they mesh?

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:

• As far as proposals go, I'll hit just a couple of the high-level proposals, and then if you want details
• Budget change proposals throughout the centers, as well as some legislative proposals, I can continue
• Flagging, maybe not necessarily about the proposal itself, but more broadly, there is a proposal for
• Our next budget change proposal is for the BH Connect proposal and the workforce proposals therein.
• Just to give a sense of some other proposals in the budget, we are talking about a major proposal to

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Governor's proposal...
• Were there discussions happening last year about this potential proposal, and why was it not proposed
• “I think this proposal came forward.
• And so this proposal, by default, in terms of what it proposes for the future state superintendent, is
• So overall, I believe that with this proposal, Overall, I believe that with this proposal, it may be

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• For the January proposal, on the chart on the left... ...for the January proposal on the chart on the
• I want to be clear that the staff proposal does not propose to defund any of those specific programs
• I want to be clear that the staff proposal does not propose to defund any of those specific programs
• Those are in the staff proposal.
• This is not a cap and invest proposal. This is a capitulate and defund proposal.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• proposal of amendments to the Senate proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendments by striking
• proposal of amendments to the Senate proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendments by striking
• proposal of amendments to the Senate proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendments by striking
• proposal of amendments to the Senate proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendments by striking
• the<01:40:19.440> proposal<01:40:20.000> directs proposes direct to the proposal

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• One minor update is that the January budget proposed $11.5 million, while the May Revision now proposes
• The governor's proposal falls short.
• DSH also proposes to reappropriate up to $6.3 million from 2025-26 and proposes provisional language
• In addition to that proposal, DSA also proposes 3.8 million in 2026-27 and 3.5 million ongoing and BHSA
• We don't object to the proposal. We understand the purpose of the proposal.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• you all were proposing.
• you all were proposing.
• other proposals.
• other proposals. and because it's in trailer, to be complex and interact with various other proposals
• So there's a lot of alignment between what they're proposing and what we're proposing.

Keywords: 987, senate, all