Transcript Highlights:

• because counties have shared costs in IHSS.
• costs in IHSS. they do. counties on the IHS spending because counties have a share of costs in IHSS.
• As you know, the state and counties currently share the non-federal portion of costs for the IHSS program
• Counties pay their portion through an annual maintenance of effort, as well as a share of costs in any
• with any federal funding policy changes, as well as any cost sharing between the state and counties.

Summary: The joint Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused first on long-term services and supports for older adults, especially the “forgotten/overlooked middle” who earn too much for Medi-Cal but cannot afford private long-term care. Administration witnesses from DHCS, the Department of Aging, and Social Services described Medicare’s limited long-term care coverage, Medi-Cal’s role, the elimination of the Medi-Cal asset test, and ongoing state studies and listening sessions on financing options. Testimony from advocates and researchers emphasized rising homelessness among older adults, the need for better navigation and coordination across health, aging, housing, and social service systems, and short-term policy steps such as share-of-cost reform, housing stability supports, and protecting home- and community-based services. Members highlighted the need for a coordinated, no-wrong-door approach and asked for the most impactful budget investments to address affordability and homelessness risk. The second major topic was the Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS) program. CDA reported that CBAS helps participants remain in the community, that 304 centers operate statewide serving about 42,000 people, and that demand is stable but access gaps remain in some regions. DHCS explained that a 2024 rate increase authorized by SB 159 became inoperative after Proposition 35, and that a separate 10% rate change on the fee schedule was the result of a DHCS system error; the department said it would not require recoupment, though managed care plans may act under their contracts. CBAS providers and advocates warned that reimbursement rates have not kept pace with costs, that several centers have closed, and that clawbacks could trigger more closures. They requested $74.8 million ongoing General Fund to close part of the rate gap and preserve the program, while members expressed concern about closures and the cost savings of keeping people out of more expensive institutional care. The hearing then moved to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) and statewide collective bargaining. CDSS reviewed provider recruitment and retention efforts, including electronic timesheets, direct deposit, and the now-completed IHSS Career Pathways program, which trained more than 59,000 providers. CDSS also summarized its AB 102 workgroup report on statewide versus regional bargaining, saying the final report would be sent to the Legislature soon and that statewide bargaining appeared more viable than regional bargaining, though it would require clear statutory scope and major fiscal changes. The department estimated that each $1 per hour statewide wage increase would cost at least $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion annually. Labor advocates argued that IHSS wages, benefits, and training are too inconsistent across counties and called for statewide bargaining, consumer participation, and ongoing state funding. County representatives supported stronger wages but cautioned that counties need protection from new costs and administrative burdens, and consumer advocates warned that moving bargaining to the state could weaken local consumer control and the program’s consumer-driven structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• H.R. 1 also establishes cost-sharing requirements.
• If counties are expected to absorb these costs and the impacts of H.R. 1 more broadly, then counties
• If counties are expected to absorb these costs and the impacts of HR one more broadly, then counties
• CalFresh cost sharing at the state's current error rates will cost just San Diego County $150 million
• We do understand H.R. 1 shifting costs to the state and the counties.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee held an informational hearing on the impact of federal H.R. 1 and related state budget actions on California’s health care system. Opening remarks framed the federal changes as a major threat to Medi-Cal, Covered California, hospitals, clinics, and the broader safety net, with warnings that millions could lose coverage and that costs would shift to providers, counties, and consumers. Testimony from the California Health Care Foundation and the Legislative Analyst’s Office focused on implementation challenges, the administrative burden of work requirements and more frequent renewals, the loss of federal funding, and the need for California to consider long-term structural changes to Medi-Cal, county safety-net programs, and cost containment. A Covered California enrollee, Chas Franklin, described sharply rising premiums for his family after losing subsidies, illustrating the personal impact of federal policy changes. Committee members raised concerns about whether premium increases were driven by H.R. 1 or insurer pricing, the cost of rebuilding county-based indigent care systems, and the need to account for the cost of inaction. Dr. Hernandez pointed to pre-ACA models such as Healthy San Francisco as examples of coordinated local safety-net care, while also emphasizing the importance of primary care, data interoperability, and the Office of Health Care Affordability in reducing waste and improving access. Department of Health Care Services officials then outlined the state’s implementation plan for H.R. 1, including work requirements, six-month redeterminations, reduced retroactive coverage, cost-sharing, and immigration-related eligibility changes. They said the department would try to automate eligibility checks, expand outreach, and train counties and partners, but estimated up to 2 million Californians could lose coverage over time. Covered California reported that the expiration of enhanced federal premium tax credits and new federal marketplace rules are already raising costs and reducing enrollment, with an estimated 400,000 enrollees at risk of dropping coverage. County, hospital, and safety-net representatives warned that coverage losses will increase uncompensated care and strain local systems, while one coalition proposed a temporary state-funded coverage option as a bridge if full-scope Medi-Cal cannot be maintained. The hearing concluded with a policy analyst urging stakeholder engagement, immigrant protections, and new state revenue options to preserve coverage and offset federal cuts.

Transcript Highlights:

• proportionally to the population that resides in that sharing pool's county.
• proportionally to the population that resides in that sharing pool's county.
• pool that is in County A, and the blue is the sharing pool in County B.
• ><c> um</c><00:50:18.280><c> and</c><00:50:18.440><c> so</c> the sharing pool in County B um and so the
• Explain that once more how the sharing works, especially in that area that is in both counties, and so

Committee: Senate Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• Do we also have a known number for the cost to counties to implement the work requirements?
• The cost to counties—so, cost to the state for implementing these, particularly the work requirements
• with counties on their county admin costs.
• Any other numbers to share in terms of the cost? And for counties?
• The counties will incur up to $5.5 billion a year in new costs to provide low-cost medical services to

Transcript Highlights:

• shares on state and county roadway projects, as amounts being demanded by policy and these cost participation
• cost for your share?
• share</c> preliminary cost share local cost share preliminary cost share local cost share analysis<00
• </c><00:32:11.639><c> our</c><00:32:11.880><c> cost</c> our local share our cost our local share our
• </c> $400,000 local cost share to the city $400,000 local cost share to the city and<00:41:40.640><c>

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• As an example, no county had enough social workers, several counties had none, and no county had enough
• County... ...are. In a county of over 10 million people, the two hotspots in L.A.
• , Orange County, or L.A.
• County; they're viewing the system as a whole. In Butte County, Orange County, or L.A.
• Counties can draw on local tax revenues to fund competitive cost-of-living adjustments, while trial courts

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation heard presentations on the Office of the State Public Defender, civil legal aid funding, and Judicial Branch operations. The State Public Defender requested permanent funding for positions that had been temporarily funded to implement the Racial Justice Act, explaining that the workload has grown substantially through retroactive capital-case briefing, habeas proceedings, data requests, and related statistical analysis. She also presented findings from a public defense workload and staffing report showing that California’s county-based public defense system is under-resourced, with too few attorneys, investigators, and support staff, especially in rural counties, and that statewide standards and funding are lacking. Committee members asked about the scope of racial bias claims, the impact of collaborative courts and Prop. 36, and the need for statewide cost estimates and phased funding options. The committee then heard from legal aid advocates and a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in support of increased civil legal aid funding. Witnesses described the Equal Access Fund, homelessness prevention services, health care access, and immigration detention defense as cost-effective ways to prevent evictions, stabilize families, and reduce downstream public costs. They requested a $50 million increase to the Equal Access Fund, $20 million to restart homelessness prevention services, and $10 million for health care access work, along with additional targeted investments from the California Access to Justice Commission. Testimony emphasized the severe shortage of legal aid attorneys, the high demand for immigration representation, and the role of legal aid in domestic violence, housing, and family law matters. Senators asked for more information on service locations, outreach, funding losses, and how the requested amounts were calculated. In the Judicial Branch overview, Judicial Council and trial court representatives supported the Governor’s proposed budget, including a $70 million increase for trial court operations, $21.7 million for employee health and retirement costs, and funding for appellate counsel and case processing. They said the money is needed to offset inflation, supply chain costs, and staffing pressures, and to preserve access to justice. Senators pressed the branch and Department of Finance on interpreter shortages, midyear funding flexibility, courthouse facilities needs, and judgeship needs in inland counties. Finance officials said they were aware of the broader facilities backlog, and the committee requested follow-up information on the full capital and maintenance needs, interpreter funding, and updated judgeship and workload data. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Counties could also impose things like cost sharing for individuals who make above certain income thresholds
• , with counties facing billions in costs annually increased due to this, costs including the cost to
• H.R. 1 also increases the county share of CalFresh administration costs by 50%, changing the match from
• Those counties don't sort of put in their full share.
• We can’t just shift the costs onto the counties.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services heard an overview of the expected California budget and program impacts from H.R. 1, including changes to Medi-Cal and CalFresh eligibility, redeterminations, work requirements, immigration-related coverage rules, retroactive coverage limits, and reductions in federal matching for certain services and provider financing mechanisms. DHCS and CDSS described implementation plans focused on automation, data matching, clearer communications, county training, and outreach, while noting that many federal details are still pending. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also reviewed how H.R. 1 could increase pressure on county indigent care systems, explaining the history of county responsibility under Section 17000, 1991 realignment, and AB 85, and warning that counties may face large increases in uninsured residents seeking care without corresponding funding flexibility. An independent policy expert urged consideration of a more standardized statewide approach to indigent care and raised questions about governance, benefits, and financing. Department witnesses estimated substantial coverage losses and fiscal effects: DHCS projected major Medi-Cal disenrollment tied to work requirements, six-month renewals, narrowed immigrant eligibility, and reduced retroactive coverage, while CDSS estimated large CalFresh benefit losses and a significant increase in administrative workload and payment accuracy pressure. Members questioned how exemptions would work for older adults, people experiencing homelessness, undocumented residents, and cash workers, and asked about the effect on the CalFresh Minimum Nutrition Benefit Pilot and on county administrative funding. Officials said they would use available data and self-attestation where possible, but acknowledged that many cases would require manual screening and that the county workload estimates remain in dispute. They also said the state is still evaluating the impact of H.R. 1 on provider taxes and state-directed payments, which could create additional budget pressure. County representatives from Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Tulare, and San Bernardino described major local consequences if H.R. 1 is implemented as written. They warned of higher uninsured rates, more strain on emergency rooms and public hospitals, increased homelessness and food insecurity, and a likely need to rebuild or expand county indigent care programs that were largely scaled back after the ACA. Counties said they are already freezing hiring, cutting positions, reducing overtime, deferring spending, and launching outreach and coordination efforts with managed care plans and community partners, but argued that these steps are not enough without additional state support. Several counties backed the California County Welfare Directors Association’s request for $373 million in General Fund support for eligibility work and asked for a CalFresh match waiver to soften the new county share of administrative costs; Los Angeles and Santa Clara also emphasized that their local revenue measures would not close the projected gaps. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• share of care, increasing the county cost of care, excuse me, for MSOP.
• It requires a county share of the cost of services for all individual waiver recipients who receive a
• These shifts include new competency attainment costs increasing county cost shares for cost of care at
• , this bill introduces a new county cost share for waiver exemption.
• Over a decade ago, the state had to defend litigation over a similar county cost share tool in other

Bills: HF2434

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• As an example, no county had enough social workers; several counties had none; and no county had enough
• And have you found ways to share that beyond, in your case, LA County, with other counties or the other
• , Orange County, or LA County; they're viewing the system as a whole.
• In Butte County, Orange County, or LA County, they're viewing the system as a whole, and we feel a responsibility
• Counties can draw on local tax revenues to fund competitive cost-of-living adjustments, while trial courts

Summary: The committee heard budget and workload presentations from the Office of the State Public Defender, legal aid organizations, and the Judicial Branch. OSPD requested permanent funding for positions that had been temporarily funded to implement the Racial Justice Act, explaining that the work has become ongoing and now includes additional Supreme Court briefing, habeas proceedings, investigations, expert analysis, and data requests. The State Public Defender also presented the AB 625 public defense workload report, which found statewide staffing shortages, caseloads above recommended standards, and major gaps in investigators and support staff. Senators asked about racial bias claims, the volume of data requests, and the impact of Prop. 36, and OSPD said it would provide additional written information. The legal aid panel asked for a $50 million increase to the Equal Access Fund, $20 million to restart homelessness prevention services, and $10 million for health care access work, while also supporting Access to Justice Commission requests for loan repayment assistance, immigrant family preparedness services, and innovation grants. Witnesses described legal aid as homelessness prevention and cited examples involving eviction defense, domestic violence survivors, and immigration detention cases. Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Sergio Tapia discussed eviction data, low tenant representation, and court pilots in Compton and at Stanley Mosk that combine mediation, rental assistance, and legal help. Senators asked for service maps, outreach materials, and more detail on funding needs and federal funding losses. For the Judicial Branch overview, the Judicial Council and trial court representatives supported the Governor’s proposed budget, including $70 million for trial court operations, $21.7 million for employee health and retirement costs, and funding for appellate counsel, case processing, and courthouse construction. They said rising costs, staffing retention, and interpreter shortages continue to strain the courts, and described efforts to reallocate interpreter funds and recruit hard-to-find languages such as Mixteco. Senators pressed the branch and the Department of Finance on courthouse facilities, noting that the long-term need is far larger than the current budget proposal; Finance said the branch’s facility needs were estimated at about $22.5 billion over 10 years to start 68 projects and $29.4 billion to complete the remaining projects. The committee requested follow-up information on facilities, judgeships, and interpreter needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• H.R. 1 also establishes cost-sharing requirements.
• If counties are expected to absorb these costs and the impacts of HR 1 more broadly, then counties need
• If counties are expected to absorb these costs and the impacts of HR one more broadly, then counties
• CalFresh cost sharing at the state's current error rates will cost just San Diego County $150 million
• We do understand HR1 shifting costs to the state and the counties.

Committee: House Health

Transcript Highlights:

• One is census data, eligibility rules, county-level cost information, and identifying where unmet need
• Outside of talking about the costs of county administration to figure this out, of sending five different
• County contract for updated indirect costs, employee benefits and rates, personnel costs, and lease costs
• County, please hold the line on the Medi-Cal Fair Share Revenue solution to address and protect our health
• counties of California and our other county partners.

Transcript Highlights:

• because counties have shared costs in IHSS.
• costs in IHSS. they do. counties on the IHS spending because counties have a share of costs in IHSS.
• As you know, the state and counties currently share the non-federal portion of costs for the IHSS program
• Counties pay their portion through an annual maintenance of effort, as well as a share of costs in any
• The report from the UC Berkeley Center also acknowledges that if counties had a share of costs in statewide

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittees held a joint hearing on older adults and long-term care supports and services, with members and witnesses focusing on the growing “forgotten/overlooked middle” of Californians who are too wealthy for Medi-Cal but unable to afford long-term services and supports (LTSS). Administration witnesses from DHCS and the Department of Aging described Medicare’s limited long-term care coverage, Medi-Cal’s role for low-income residents, and ongoing state work on LTSS financing, including a 2024 financing initiative and a final report due in 2026. Testimony emphasized rising costs, caregiver shortages, homelessness among older adults, and the need to preserve home- and community-based services to avoid more expensive institutional care. Several advocates urged immediate action, especially Medi-Cal share-of-cost reform, housing supports, and protection of HCBS funding. Members asked for the most urgent budget priorities and were told to focus on share-of-cost reform and assisted-living rate protections, along with broader system navigation and caregiver support. The committee also heard testimony on the Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS) program. CDA reported that CBAS serves about 42,000 participants through 304 centers, with demand generally stable but geographic gaps in some regions and staffing challenges after the pandemic. DHCS explained a rate-setting issue: a 10% CBAS rate increase had been mistakenly posted on the Medi-Cal fee schedule in 2024, and while Proposition 35 later made the targeted SB 159 rate increase inoperative, DHCS said any repayment by managed care plans would depend on contract terms and the department would not require clawbacks. CBAS providers and advocates warned that the program is in a financial crisis, with six center closures since June 2024, and requested $74.8 million ongoing General Fund to close about half the gap between current reimbursement and costs. Members expressed concern that clawbacks could accelerate closures and noted the program’s role in preventing institutionalization and supporting family caregivers. In the final panel, CDSS presented on In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) provider recruitment and retention and on the AB 102 statewide bargaining report. CDSS said the IHSS Career Pathways program has concluded successfully, with more than 59,000 providers completing training, and that the AB 102 report—based on workgroup meetings and consultant analysis—will be sent to the Legislature shortly. The department said the workgroup viewed statewide bargaining as more viable than regional bargaining, but identified major issues around consumer participation, county fiscal impacts, administrative responsibilities, and the need to define bargaining scope in statute. CDSS estimated that each $1 per hour statewide wage increase would cost at least $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion annually. Provider unions supported statewide bargaining, arguing it would improve wages, benefits, and workforce stability, while county representatives said any statewide model should preserve consumer focus, protect county finances and realignment funds, and keep core administrative functions with local public authorities. The hearing concluded without votes, with members requesting additional follow-up information and urging continued engagement ahead of the May revise.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under current law, that would mean the state's share grows to 52.5% and the county share grows to 22.5%
• in annual county costs.
• Counties are taking on increased costs related to administrative costs in CalFresh, as I mentioned, but
• Counties are taking on increased costs related to administrative costs in CalFresh, as I mentioned, but
• In California, the state pays 70% of the state share and the counties pay the remaining 30%.

Transcript Highlights:

• You'll hear a lot from counties during this hearing, but the administrative cost share between the federal
• </c> cost share between the federal cost share between the federal government<00:18:03.360><c> and</c
• </c> up to a 10% cost share based on higher up to a 10% cost share based on higher error<01:10:19.760
• down to 25% cost share.
• </c> 50% cost share down to 25% cost share. 50% cost share down to 25% cost share.

Transcript Highlights:

• Supreme Court opinion that some of the county treasurers, in fact many of the county treasurers and many
• Counties don't run utilities.
• And just as the end, as we get to my two minutes, I just want to share with you that counties do diligently
• Now the county is post-Wayfair.
• Urban revenue sharing, state shared revenue all increased as well.

Committee: House House Ways & Means Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2780, a technical cleanup measure related to Arizona’s judicial tax lien foreclosure process. The sponsor and a witness explained that it would clarify when a foreclosure should proceed as a public sale, standardize how excess proceeds are distributed, and resolve inconsistencies left from prior reforms. Members asked about the intent to protect lienholders while ensuring former property owners can receive excess funds; the bill was then returned with a due pass recommendation on a 9-0 vote. The committee then took up House Bill 4029, as amended, which would require the Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to evaluate the revenue impact of federal tax conformity changes earlier in the year, and would require the Department of Revenue to issue tax forms consistent with current statute. The amendment added reporting deadlines and a trigger for the governor to assess whether a special session is needed if the revenue impact is at least $100 million. Supporters argued the bill would force earlier action on conformity and prevent tax forms from being issued based on changes not yet enacted; opponents said it added bureaucracy and could delay the long-standing practice of preparing forms based on expected conformity. The committee adopted the amendment and then approved the bill as amended on a 5-4 vote. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 4030 and the related HCR 2052, which would impose a moratorium from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2030 on local increases in municipal and county fees, transaction privilege tax rates, and utility rates. Supporters said the measure would protect taxpayers from higher costs of living and prevent local governments from using utility rates or fees to offset other revenue needs. Opponents from cities, counties, and advocacy groups warned it could limit funding for water, wastewater, roads, public safety, and other infrastructure, especially for fast-growing or rural communities that rely on rate studies, grants, and enterprise funds. After extensive testimony and debate over municipal revenue growth, utility financing, and local control, the committee moved the bill forward; the transcript ends during the roll call and does not clearly state the final vote on HB 4030 or HCR 2052.

Transcript Highlights:

• Rising insurance costs, rising accounts receivable, rising construction costs.
• So this authorizes cities and counties to do this. Could a county authorize this?
• So this authorizes cities and counties to do this. Could a county authorize this?
• Should I share? I'm not allowed to share yet.
• Should I share? I'm not allowed to share yet.

Summary: House Finance heard testimony on two affordable housing bills. House Bill 1859 would expand an existing density bonus for housing on religious organization property by lowering the affordability threshold from 100% to at least 50% affordable units, requiring local policies to implement the bonus upon request, and creating a new state and local sales and use tax exemption for qualifying projects with at least 50% affordable units maintained for 10 years. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would help projects on church-owned land pencil out amid high construction and financing costs, while a county association raised concern that the bill would create an unfunded mandate for local planning departments. Several witnesses also asked that homeownership projects be explicitly included, and staff confirmed the exemption would be administered through an exemption certificate. The committee then moved to House Bill 1717, which would authorize cities and counties to create a local sales and use tax remittance program for affordable housing developments. Staff said the remittance would cover 100% of local taxes paid after project completion, with a 50% affordable housing threshold and 40-year affordability requirement, and the sponsor and local government and housing advocates supported it as a flexible tool to reduce development costs. Testifiers generally backed both bills, with some asking for more flexibility on income targeting and clarification on county-city interactions under HB 1717. No votes were taken; both public hearings were closed and the committee adjourned after a separate work session on the Working Families Tax Credit, where advocates urged broader eligibility, higher benefit amounts, and easier access, and a California researcher described data-linking methods used to improve tax credit take-up.

Transcript Highlights:

• As an example, no county had enough social workers, several counties had none, and no county had enough
• And have you found ways to share that beyond, in your case, LA County, with other counties or the other
• , Orange County, or LA County; they're viewing the system as a whole.
• In Butte County, Orange County, or LA County, they're viewing the system as a whole, and we feel a responsibility
• Counties can draw on local tax revenues to fund competitive cost-of-living adjustments, while trial courts

Transcript Highlights:

• with you is that counties acknowledge the fact that elections need to be a shared cost or a partnership
• with you is that counties acknowledge the fact that elections need to be a shared cost or a partnership
• with you is that counties acknowledge the fact that elections need to be a shared cost or a partnership
• with you is that counties acknowledge the fact that elections need to be a shared cost or a partnership
• with you is that counties acknowledge the fact that elections need to be a shared cost or a partnership

Committee: House Elections Finance and Government Operations

Transcript Highlights:

• You're the CEO of Food Share of Ventura County? Yes. Oh, do I need to turn this on? I'm on.
• My name is Monica White, and I'm the president and CEO of Food Share Ventura County, and I appreciate
• The loss resulted in over 200,000 pounds of food that cost $400,000 for Food Share to replace.
• Local health advocates recently shared that undocumented or mixed-status families in Ventura County are
• cost rate.

Summary: The joint Senate and Assembly select committee hearing focused on the challenges facing California nonprofits in 2025 and possible state responses. Opening remarks emphasized the sector’s size and importance, the impact of federal funding disruptions and tax policy changes, and the need for stronger public-private partnerships, especially in disaster response and recovery. Witnesses from community foundations, food banks, Cal OES, long-term recovery groups, CalNonprofits, and nonprofit finance organizations described funding uncertainty, delayed reimbursements, reduced indirect cost coverage, staffing strain, and the effects of climate disasters and immigration-related fear on service delivery. Testimony highlighted several policy ideas, including advance payments for state grants and contracts, prompt payment standards, sustainable indirect cost rates, contract flexibility in emergencies, streamlined registration and reporting, and a possible new Office of Nonprofit Empowerment to serve as a central point of contact and coordination within state government. Speakers also described how nonprofits and VOAD networks support wildfire response and long-term recovery, but noted that recovery groups often lack stable operating funding even when they are recognized as best practice. A food bank leader described federal food aid cuts and disruptions to deliveries, while other witnesses stressed that nonprofits are increasingly forced to use reserves, loans, or service reductions to manage cash flow gaps. Committee members generally expressed support for the sector and asked how the state could better partner with nonprofits during both disasters and budget crises. Several members raised the possibility of incremental steps if full legislative changes are not immediately feasible, and witnesses suggested pilots, better sharing of best practices, and stronger state leadership on payment timelines. Public commenters echoed the need for better contracting practices, support for community-based organizations, and attention to nonprofit worker compensation and protections. No formal votes or committee actions were taken in the hearing, which concluded with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The court system and security also cost the county.
• One thing I wanted to just kind of share is just cost of living.
• I wanted to just kind of share is just cost of living.
• One thing I wanted to just kind of share is just cost of living.
• I wanted to just kind of share is just cost of living.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes heard first from city representatives through the Florida League of Cities, who argued that property taxes are a stable local revenue source that funds core services such as police, fire, parks, public works, and stormwater work. Casey Cook emphasized that cities are optional governments with widely different tax bases and service levels, that exemptions shift the burden to fewer taxpayers, and that transparency already exists through TRIM notices, public budgets, and local hearings. Sarah Campbell of Fernandina Beach, T. Michael Stavris of Winter Haven, and Stephen O’Kee of Port St. Lucie described their budget processes, the share of general-fund revenue coming from property taxes, reserve policies, debt and capital planning, and the impact of inflation, minimum wage increases, and personnel costs. They all said local governments need predictable revenue and that any property tax changes would require careful consideration of replacement funding or service reductions. Members questioned the city panel about whether homebuyers are clearly informed about city versus county taxes and services, the role of HOAs, how many lobbyists cities employ, reserve levels, average salaries, and whether utility revenues are used only for utility purposes. The panel said TRIM notices, realtor listings, and city websites provide tax information; HOAs generally do not provide emergency services; lobbyists help local governments track Tallahassee legislation; reserves vary by city and fund; and utility revenues are generally restricted, though some cities use limited transfers. Members also asked about revenue replacement if ad valorem taxes were reduced or eliminated, and the panel said options would likely include user fees, service cuts, or other local revenue shifts. The chair also asked about public safety consolidation, and the response was that such decisions are local and may shift costs rather than create true savings. The committee then heard from county representatives after an overview by the Florida Association of Counties’ Davin Suggs, who framed counties as shared partners with the state and emphasized the gap between rising market values and the shrinking share of taxable value after exemptions and assessment limits. He said counties face a mismatch between revenue based on taxable value and expenses driven by real-world costs, and noted that most counties either held millage steady or lowered it without reaching rollback rates. He also highlighted that property taxes are only one part of county revenue, with charges for services and intergovernmental revenue often larger in some counties, and that public safety at the county level includes more than law enforcement, such as EMS, emergency management, inspections, and corrections. Deborah Manzo of Okeechobee County described a fiscally constrained rural county with limited staff, a county-supported airport, heavy reliance on property taxes for the general fund, and major cost pressures from inflation, insurance, retirement, and state and federal mandates. She said the county lowered millage slightly over recent years but still depends on multiple revenue sources and special assessments, and she flagged Medicaid, medical examiner costs, and possible firefighter workweek changes as significant concerns. Bay County Administrator Mark McQueen said his county’s budget is shaped by Hurricane Michael recovery, non-discretionary obligations, and rapid growth; he described ongoing FEMA reimbursement delays, substantial borrowing to cover disaster costs, and continuing interest expenses while the county waits for reimbursement. The county panel was still in progress when the transcript ended.