Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, counties are responsible for conducting all IHSS assessments, but do not share in the cost
• Currently counties are responsible for conducting all IHSS assessments, but do not share in the cost
• costs that will result in cuts to core county HHS programs.
• of non-federal IHSS costs compared to the counties, and this proposal would shift the costs of some
• costs to counties.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the impact of H.R. 1 on older Californians and related county administration issues. Chair Jackson and Chair Addis opened by emphasizing California’s rapidly aging population and the need to protect seniors’ access to food, health care, housing, and in-home support services. Testimony from the Department of Social Services, Department of Health Care Services, and Department of Aging described how H.R. 1 would expand work and reporting requirements in CalFresh and Medi-Cal, increase redeterminations, and create new eligibility barriers. Witnesses and advocates warned that these changes could lead to large coverage losses, especially for adults ages 55 to 64, people experiencing homelessness, caregivers, and some immigrant groups, while also increasing administrative burden on counties. The LAO noted that many provisions do not directly apply to Californians 65 and older, but highlighted indirect effects and some direct impacts, including a new home equity limit for certain long-term care recipients and narrower immigration eligibility rules. Committee members pressed the administration and counties on how exemptions would be identified and implemented, whether data systems could automatically protect eligible people, and how outreach would reach older adults, women, LGBTQ seniors, and people with limited digital access. DHCS and CDSS said they are working to use existing data, cross-program information sharing, and human-centered communications to maximize exemptions and reduce churn, including text outreach, print and radio campaigns, and navigator support. Members also raised concerns about the need for legal aid and county eligibility workers to help people navigate complex rules, and requested updated analyses on the number of people likely to lose both Medi-Cal and CalFresh and the broader human and system impacts. No votes were taken. The second major topic was the administration’s proposal to shift some future IHSS costs to counties by establishing a statewide baseline for average authorized hours per case. CDSS said the proposal is intended to improve consistency in assessments and not reduce services, while counties and labor groups strongly opposed it, arguing that rising hours reflect real increases in need, an aging and higher-acuity caseload, and state-mandated assessment tools rather than county error. County representatives said the proposal would strain already limited local revenues, worsen the effects of H.R. 1, and could force cuts to other safety-net services. Committee members questioned the proposal’s timing and impact, but the hearing ended without action, with the chairs asking for continued updates, additional analysis, and more information before May Revision.

Transcript Highlights:

• So a statewide connection would lower costs and make sure that all counties, especially the counties
• or more other counties.
• sharing.
• For those drugs, driving up the cost to me and my cost sharing and to my employer, who is a self-insured
• sharing and to my employer who is. for those drugs driving up the cost to me and my cost sharing and

Summary: The Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee held a hearing on several bills. SB 5904 would prohibit non-human entities from using nursing titles; the sponsor and nursing groups said it is meant to increase transparency around AI and ensure patients know when they are interacting with a real nurse. SB 5915 would change Health Technology Assessment Program review criteria and timelines, with supporters arguing it would better account for Medicare coverage and national guidelines, especially for rare and life-threatening conditions. SB 6025 would update the definition of fetal death to allow gestational age to be determined by the best clinically accurate method rather than last menstrual period, and medical professionals and the sponsor said this would reduce emotional, financial, and legal burdens on grieving families. SB 5933 would require near real-time sharing of overdose data into ODMAP; public health, local government, and recovery advocates said it would improve overdose response, while one witness asked that poison center data be included and clarified separately. SB 5990 would allow APRNs and physician assistants to serve as local health officers in counties under 100,000 population; rural county officials supported the added flexibility, while public health groups and naturopathic physicians raised concerns about qualifications and asked that naturopathic doctors be included as well. SB 5981 would restrict drug manufacturers from limiting 340B drug access through contract pharmacies or requiring data as a condition of discounts; safety-net hospitals, community health centers, pharmacies, and patients said it protects access and reinvestment in care, while manufacturers, employer groups, and industry representatives argued it increases costs, lacks transparency, and may not ensure savings reach patients. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the transcript; each bill was heard and testimony was closed. Sign-in counts were reported for several bills, including strong pro support for SB 5904, SB 5915, SB 5933, and SB 5981, and mixed or substantial opposition on SB 6025 and SB 5990.

Transcript Highlights:

• share cost for the state administrative expense target, as counties were never informed and could have
• And third, reject any county share of costs for state administration.
• Third, reject any county share of costs for state administration expense overspending, as counties were
• Hold counties harmless from the premature $19 million cut and reject any new county share of cost for
• Counties will struggle to afford the cost shift.

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:

• Cost sharing creates a real obstacle, especially for lower-income patients, leading many to delay or
• It would be a diagnostic workup, and that’s where the cost-sharing kicks in for patients.
• It’s the cost-sharing issue or the co-pays.
• Existing federal law requires all cost sharing to count toward the MOOP.
• She's also a patient advocate and shares her own story of invisible costs.

Committee: Senate Health

Transcript Highlights:

• around pharmacy costs.
• And so we share Assemblymember Schiavo's request to reform the share of cost program.
• of cost reform.
• Ventura County was allocated 58% of their actual costs. And their caseworkers have 600 cases.
• our county office.

Transcript Highlights:

• history due to the availability of the federal enhanced premium tax credit and the California enhanced cost-sharing
• And as we have more information from our carriers and actual costs, we will be working closely to share
• As we have more information from our carriers and actual costs, we will be working closely to share that
• The high premiums, escalating cost-sharing, and employer mandate exemptions have resulted in a system
• The high premiums, escalating cost-sharing, and employer mandate exemptions have resulted in a system

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the Department of Health Care Services’ proposed budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds budget and projected Medi-Cal enrollment decline as redeterminations continue. Members focused heavily on the fiscal and programmatic effects of prior budget solutions and federal changes, especially the elimination of General Fund-supported Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, the hospice utilization-management change, and the impact of reduced caseloads alongside rising health care costs. DHCS said it is still completing required access and rate-reduction analyses for the dental cuts and has been engaging stakeholders, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect on utilization or provider participation. The committee also reviewed the November 2025 Medi-Cal local assistance estimate, which shows higher General Fund spending despite lower enrollment, driven by managed care rate growth, Medicare cost growth, state-only claiming, and federal policy changes. The hearing then turned to provider taxes and federal H.R. 1 constraints, with extensive discussion of the MCO tax, the hospital quality assurance fee, and other health care-related taxes. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 phases down allowable tax levels and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, making the current MCO tax structure and the proposed higher hospital fee levels difficult or impossible to renew as originally designed. Staff and the LAO described the tradeoff between preserving Medi-Cal funding and avoiding higher costs on private providers and consumers. Members asked about options for preserving revenue, including possible amendments to Prop. 35 or returning to voters, and were told the department is still evaluating approaches while federal guidance remains in flux. The committee also reviewed hospital payment increases already implemented through state-directed payments, with DHCS noting that H.R. 1 will force those payments down to Medicare levels over time. Several budget change proposals were discussed and left open, including requests tied to the managed care final rule, managed care operations, hospital value strategy, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability requirements. The committee also heard about a one-year trailer bill extension for skilled nursing facility financing, including continuation of the SNF workforce standards program, the SNF quality assurance fee, and annual rate growth, while the department develops a longer-term financing redesign for 2027-28. Members expressed skepticism about repeated rate reform efforts and questioned whether a one-year extension of the eliminated workforce quality incentive program should be restored during the transition. Finally, Covered California presented its budget and enrollment update, reporting that the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit is expected to reduce affordability significantly, with average premiums roughly doubling for many enrollees and as many as 400,000 Californians potentially losing marketplace coverage over time. The exchange said California’s $190 million subsidy program is helping lower-income enrollees, but not enough to offset the federal loss, and it is also implementing a new gender-affirming care benefit and awaiting federal action on benchmark plan changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Across counties, the shares range between 5% and 27%.
• food costs rise.
• Across counties, the shares range between 5% and 27%.
• First, the federal share of the costs of administering the CalFresh program will drop from 50% to 25%
• in October 2027 if our payment error rate is above the 6% threshold required to avoid this cost share

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Assembly Committees on Economic Development, Growth, and Household Impact and Agriculture, held at Fresno State, focused on cost pressures in California’s food system, household affordability, and the Central Valley’s role in agriculture. Opening remarks emphasized Fresno State’s regional importance, the Central Valley’s outsized contribution to food production, and the connection between agricultural health, food security, and the broader economy. Members also noted the impact of the federal shutdown on CalFresh benefits and the state’s efforts to respond with food assistance funding and National Guard support for food banks. The first panel featured academic and policy experts who described agriculture’s economic importance in the San Joaquin Valley and the rising pressures on farms and households. Dr. Conduro highlighted agriculture’s large share of regional GDP, farm receipts, jobs, exports, and food manufacturing, while identifying water scarcity, SGMA-related land fallowing, labor shortages and rising labor costs, market volatility, invasive pests, and production cost inflation as major barriers. Caroline Danielson of PPIC said food prices remain about 30% above 2019 levels, food insecurity affects about 1.8 million California households, and nutrition programs such as CalFresh, WIC, and school meals are essential in reducing poverty, especially in the Central Valley. Susie Pryor of the Central California Small Business Development Center described technical assistance, capital access, and training for small food and farm businesses, while warning that reduced funding limits support for rural and immigrant entrepreneurs. The second panel brought testimony from a small produce business owner, a food entrepreneur, and the Fresno County Farm Bureau. They said input costs for fertilizer, fuel, irrigation, labor, land leases, and compliance have risen sharply while commodity prices have remained flat or fallen, squeezing small farms and food businesses. Panelists stressed the need for small-batch processing facilities, local supply chains, education on food manufacturing compliance, land access for small farmers, and more pathways into agriculture through trade programs, community colleges, and FFA. Ryan Jacobson said California agriculture is facing a prolonged downturn, with farm bankruptcies, weak commodity prices, export-market uncertainty, water reliability problems, and costly ag-burning rules all contributing to financial strain. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken; the hearing was informational and concluded with discussion of possible policy solutions and continued engagement with stakeholders.

Transcript Highlights:

• sharing.
• sharing.
• So counties that choose to opt in would be responsible for covering the non-federal share of costs without
• We definitely recognize that counties differ in their capacity to support the non-federal share once
• So, in conclusion, making mobile crisis an optional benefit will result in increased costs to counties

Transcript Highlights:

• sharing.
• The program costs something like $70 million in 2025-26, and just for my three counties they've gotten
• So counties that choose to opt in would be responsible for covering the non-federal share of costs without
• We definitely recognize that counties differ in their capacity to support the non-federal share once
• So, in conclusion, making mobile crisis an optional benefit will result in increased costs to counties

Summary: The hearing focused first on behavioral health, especially serious mental illness and anosognosia, a condition described by witnesses as a neurological symptom that prevents people from recognizing they are ill. The chair framed the issue around families cycling through emergency rooms, jails, conservatorships, and short-term stabilization without lasting treatment, and warned that federal changes under H.R. 1 could reduce Medi-Cal funding and worsen access. Dawn Marie Anderson gave a personal account of her son’s long history of psychosis, homelessness, arrests, repeated jail and state hospital stays, and eventual stability when he received sustained medication and coordinated support. She argued that the system often treats the problem as criminal rather than medical and that voluntary programs and short-term services are not enough for people who lack insight into their illness. Other panelists, including representatives from the California Behavioral Health Association, Santa Barbara County Behavioral Health, and the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, agreed that anosognosia is not denial or noncompliance and said the system needs long-term, coordinated care, including assertive community treatment, mobile crisis, supportive housing, medication support, and stronger handoffs between county and managed care systems. They said CalAIM and other reforms have improved some coordination, but significant gaps remain, especially for people with serious mental illness, for those in jail or locked settings, and for people with private insurance, which witnesses said often offers little meaningful coverage for early psychosis or intensive behavioral health services. Several witnesses urged the Legislature to protect Medi-Cal, shore up county safety-net services, and invest in training and family engagement. The committee then turned to the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, with a focus on the virtual services platforms BrightLife Kids and Soluna and the CYBHI fee schedule. DHCS reported strong growth in app registrations, coaching sessions, referrals, and positive user outcomes, saying the platforms provide free, culturally responsive, early-intervention support statewide and help connect users to higher levels of care when needed. On the fee schedule, DHCS said more than 500 LEAs, colleges, universities, and school-linked providers are participating, 181 LEAs have submitted claims, and $9.6 million has been reimbursed to date, with 41,556 students represented in claims. The chair and several members criticized the pace of implementation and the amount of money spent relative to reimbursement levels, saying the Legislature had requested data earlier and that the return on investment still appeared low. DHCS responded that many claims are still being submitted, that 70% of denials are correctable, that $400 million in capacity grants has been distributed locally, and that reimbursement is increasing rapidly as more districts come online. Public comment included a rural county behavioral health director who said private insurance denials leave counties with significant uncompensated work, especially for unlicensed staff providing case management and mobile crisis services.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:26:31.279><c> share</c> add this proposal adds a 5% County share add this proposal adds a 5%
• </c> County share applies to residential County share applies to residential services<00:26:45.159><c
• For example, the county share proposal is 5% of the state share of that service, so there wouldn't be
• > 5%</c> example the county share proposal is 5% example the county share proposal is 5% of<01:44:28.960
• the federal shares the industry County the federal shares more<01:51:53.560><c> like</c><01:51:53.679

Committee: Senate Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• of cost for both administration and potentially imposes a share of cost for benefits, which is not something
• The state likely will need to share in the cost of food benefits.
• It maintains the 50% federal cost share for federal fiscal year 2026.
• These provisions related to cost sharing are effective October 1, 2028.
• from decreased federal administrative cost sharing.

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:

• transfers at no cost.
• I'm not aware of work that's being done in other counties, but in Pierce County it's not unique because
• We actually worked with the TCRA on a county property on 35th and Pacific that the county transferred
• property on 35th and Pacific that we transferred the county transfer the county transfer property on
• I think there was a question of, is this across, is what Pierce County is doing in other counties?

Committee: House Housing

Summary: The committee held a work session on land banking and shared homeownership models, with members and staff discussing ways to use public land and nonprofit partnerships to expand permanently affordable housing. Commerce’s Dave Anderson outlined recent policy changes that may support these models, including ADUs, middle housing, lot splitting, condominium reforms, church land housing, and public land transfer policies. He described community land trusts and limited equity housing cooperatives as ways for households to build some equity without owning land outright. Representatives asked about statewide numbers and implementation, and Commerce said it is preparing a guidebook for local planners. Pierce County staff described the Pierce County Community Development Corporation’s rapid acquisition fund, public-to-public land transfers, and land banking loans. They said the county used general fund and 1406 sales tax dollars to acquire properties, preserve a manufactured home park through resident ownership, and assemble public surplus and underutilized sites for future affordable housing. Committee members asked about the entity’s advantages over private developers, funding sources, coordination with housing authorities, and whether similar models exist elsewhere. The presenter said the main advantage is the ability to receive public property transfers at no cost and hold land while development plans are assembled. Amy Manning of the Spokane Regional Land Bank said land banks help move vacant, blighted, or underutilized properties into affordable housing and community use, but holding costs and taxes can make projects harder to finance. She described EPA brownfield assessments, Commerce planning grants, donated properties, and work with the City of Spokane on surplus and underutilized land. Victoria O’Beynion of the Northwest Cooperative Development Center then testified on limited equity cooperatives, especially in manufactured housing communities, saying they preserve affordability, support resident governance, and can build modest equity over time. She cited growth in cooperative acquisitions since 2020 and said recent legislation allowing manufactured homes in cooperatives to be titled as real property has improved access to traditional financing. The committee then shifted to maximizing existing housing stock. Dave Anderson reviewed the state’s recent housing laws and said implementation is still unfolding, with local code updates and planning cycles taking years. He noted growth in ADUs, room rentals, and multifamily production, but also concerns about short-term rentals and corporate ownership of single-family homes. Members asked for follow-up data on implementation timelines, vacancy, corporate ownership, and eviction patterns. Sightline’s Katie Gould presented on mobile dwelling units, arguing that RVs and tiny houses on wheels are a low-cost, fast-to-install housing option that is often blocked by zoning, and described cases where people were forced into precarious or illegal arrangements. AARP’s Kathy McCall closed by emphasizing aging in place, housing cost burdens on older adults, and the need for more accessible, lower-cost options such as ADUs, missing middle housing, and manufactured home community preservation.

Transcript Highlights:

• County, Nuni Mata of Yolo County, and Mark Gordon of Butte County having diminished access to care or
• In addition, the county appreciates the rejection of the IHSS cost shift to counties for hours per case
• shift to the counties.
• shift to counties.
• Appreciate the rejection of the IHSS cuts and the proposal to shift cost to counties. Thanks.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

• The reimbursement rate to counties is reported to cost $250 per day per juvenile.
• While counties share the goal of improving youth outcomes, we cannot support legislation that shifts
• While counties share the goal of improving youth outcomes, we cannot support legislation that shifts
• the actual cost to the state, counties, and employers.
• the actual cost to the state, counties, and employers.

Bills: HB2675 , HB2681 , HB2714 , HB2688 , HB2481 , HB2116 , HB1408

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: accounts, finance, business regulation, transparency, audits, cannabis, license fees, regulatory framework, revenue generation, legalization, HB 2714, caseload forecasting, food assistance, SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, state food assistance, budget forecasting, caseload forecast council, caseload forecast supervisor, Washington State

Transcript Highlights:

• to their ability to pay, may include a sliding scale of share of costs for patients as well.
• minimum requirement for counties to share with us so that we are all on the same page?
• is based on actual county costs and savings and provides a more accurate reflection of what counties
• Is there anything counties can do to share? Or is this really a statewide problem?
• costs, as well as counties that are 60-40 that are going to need to transition to the formula.

Summary: The hearing focused on the expected health coverage losses tied to H.R. 1, the resulting pressure on California’s county indigent care systems, and what data and policy changes the Legislature may need before the next budget cycle. Chair Hart and Assemblymember Addis framed the issue as a major rollback in coverage that could leave more Californians uninsured and push more people into county safety-net programs. Members repeatedly emphasized the need for baseline, county-by-county data on eligibility, benefits, caseloads, and funding before making larger structural decisions. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained the history of county indigent care under Welfare and Institutions Code 17000, the shift in funding through 1991 realignment, and the later redirection of funds to CalWORKs. LAO said county programs vary widely in scope and eligibility, that current realignment funding does not automatically rise with demand, and that the Legislature faces tradeoffs if it changes the funding structure. Administration witnesses from Finance and DHCS projected large Medi-Cal and Covered California enrollment losses, with DHCS estimating more than 1 million Medi-Cal members could eventually lose coverage under work requirements and redeterminations, and noting that a new federal rule could make exemptions more restrictive. Officials also said there is no single statewide real-time data system for uninsured or indigent care populations, though some hospital and utilization data exists with significant lags. County representatives from Santa Barbara, San Diego, and Tulare described how their indigent care programs are being rebuilt or strained after years of low demand. They warned that many newly uninsured residents will need only basic, emergency-oriented care under county programs, not the preventive and continuous care available through Medi-Cal, and said that without new state support counties may have to divert funds from public health or reduce other services. Several counties asked for bridge funding, technical statutory changes, and flexibility to adjust realignment methodology. The California Health Care Foundation closed by arguing that the problem is statewide and needs a statewide solution rather than a patchwork county response.

Transcript Highlights:

• Kentucky's share of those costs for section two is $508 million.
• costs is for section two share of those costs is for section two is<00:08:57.120><c> 508</c><00:08:58.080
• Kentucky's share of those costs, which covers the approach and the Kentucky assets and the shared 50%
• Kentucky's share of those costs, which covers the approach and the Kentucky assets and the shared 50%
• Kentucky share of those costs<00:16:00.240><c> which</c><00:16:00.480><c> covers</c><00:16:00.800><c>

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from its June 3 meeting and received an opening update on transportation revenues. Leadership noted that the gas tax formula dropped 4.1 cents on July 1, reducing road fund revenue by about $125 million, and warned that city, county, rural, and secondary road funding will be affected. The chair said the committee would likely have to be selective about transportation project requests given the reduced revenue outlook. The main presentation was an update on the I-69 bridge project. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet officials said the project is the missing link in the Henderson-Evansville corridor and is being delivered in three sections, with Kentucky leading section two. They said section two is a $933 million project, with Kentucky’s share described as $58 million and the balance Indiana’s, and that toll revenue will be used to finance the project through a TIFIA loan and Garvey bonds. Officials said Kentucky and Indiana have executed an agreement under House Bill 546 to use tolls, are working on a broader bi-state development agreement, and will ask the General Assembly next session to carry forward $150 million in general funds without conditions and to ratify the agreement. Members asked about the timeline, toll sharing, whether tolls would sunset, and whether US 41 bridges would remain open for local traffic; officials said construction is planned for 2027, tolling would begin in 2031, toll revenue would be shared 50/50, and at least one US 41 bridge would remain open for local use. The committee then heard a combined update from the Department of Vehicle Regulation and the Division of Motor Vehicle Licensing on implementation of several recent changes. Officials reported that the new registration category for special-purpose vehicles is fully operational statewide, with all counties enrolled and 292 vehicles processed so far; they also said counties received at least five plates each and that the program is permissive, not mandatory. They described implementation of Senate Bill 43’s medical review board reforms and third-party driver’s license issuance framework, saying the medical review process has been updated and that third-party partners may eventually handle easier transactions such as renewals, name changes, and address changes, while initial issuances would remain at KYTC regional offices. They also reported that the sheriff’s inspection process has been integrated into CAVIS, reducing paperwork and fraud and improving tracking. Members asked about communication to counties and cities with differing local rules, the number of counties participating, and how to coordinate multiple policy changes; officials said all counties are enrolled, though not all have submitted applications, and that they are still finalizing the scope of third-party services.

Transcript Highlights:

• cost lives.
• cost lives.
• Louis County, which is the largest county in the state, and Lake County, which is a county in Greater
• Home-sharing programs.
• </c> housing is defined as housing that cost housing is defined as housing that cost a<00:41:11.200><

Committee: House Housing Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• transfers at no cost.
• I'm not aware of work that's being done in other counties, but in Pierce County it's not unique because
• We actually worked with the TCRA on a county property on 35th and Pacific that the county transferred
• Share, the share that they use to purchase into the cooperative, just like in a community land trust,
• I think there was a question of, is this across— is what Pierce County is doing in other counties?

Summary: The committee met for work sessions on land banking/shared homeownership and on maximizing existing housing stock. Members first heard an overview from Commerce on alternative homeownership models, including community land trusts, limited equity cooperatives, condominiums, accessory dwelling units, middle housing, church land for housing, and public land transfers. The discussion focused on how these models can help households build equity while keeping housing permanently affordable. Committee members asked about statewide counts of co-ops and land trusts, and Commerce said it does not track all of those entities directly. Pierce County staff then described the Pierce County Community Development Corporation’s rapid acquisition fund and its role in acquiring, holding, and transferring public land for affordable housing. They said the county used general fund and affordable housing sales tax dollars to buy properties, preserve a manufactured home park through resident ownership, and create a pipeline of sites for future development. Members asked about the advantages of a public development authority, funding sources, the use of surplus and underutilized public property, and how the model works with housing authorities. Spokane land bank staff followed with testimony that land banks can reduce blight, preserve affordability, and help nonprofits acquire land quickly, but that holding costs and taxes can make the work harder without state support. They also described brownfield assessments, donated properties, and work on Black homeownership and public surplus properties. The committee then heard from the Northwest Cooperative Development Center on limited equity cooperatives, especially in manufactured housing communities. The witness said Washington now has about 43 limited equity co-ops and that recent subsidy funding and legislation have accelerated resident purchases of manufactured home communities. Members asked how residents benefit from capped equity, how values are affected, and whether the model improves access to lending; the witness said the model stabilizes costs, allows modest equity gains, and that a recent law allowing manufactured homes in co-ops to be titled as real property should improve access to traditional financing. The committee also discussed House Bill 1974 from the prior session and possible updates to land banking legislation. In the second work session on maximizing existing housing stock, Commerce reviewed recent housing laws and implementation timelines, including ADUs, middle housing, condo liability reform, SEPA changes, tiny homes, and co-living. Members raised concerns about the long implementation horizon, vacancy data, corporate ownership of homes, and the need for better support for small landlords and first-time ADU owners. Sightline then testified on mobile dwelling units, arguing that RVs, tiny houses on wheels, and similar units are a low-cost, quick-to-install housing option that is often blocked by zoning; the witness said many Washington residents already live in these units, often informally. Finally, AARP discussed housing options for older adults, including ADUs, missing middle, manufactured home communities, co-living, universal design, and village-style support models, emphasizing aging in place and the need for more accessible, affordable housing choices.

Transcript Highlights:

• history due to the availability of the federal enhanced premium tax credit and the California enhanced cost-sharing
• And as we have more information from our carriers and actual costs, we will be working closely to share
• As we have more information from our carriers and actual costs, we will be working closely to share that
• The high premiums, escalating cost-sharing, and employer mandate exemptions... Seasonal workers.
• The high premiums, escalating cost-sharing, and employer mandate exemptions have resulted in a system

Summary: The subcommittee heard a lengthy Department of Health Care Services presentation on the governor’s Medi-Cal budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds proposal, projected Medi-Cal enrollment declines as redeterminations continue, and several major cost drivers such as managed care growth, Medicare-related costs, pharmacy spending, and changes tied to federal policy. Members focused heavily on the elimination of Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, questioning the likely impact on provider participation and utilization. DHCS said it is completing the required rate reduction/access analysis for CMS, has been holding stakeholder meetings and issuing provider bulletins, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect. The committee also discussed a $50 million savings proposal tied to new hospice utilization management authority and asked about possible effects on emergency dental care and provider participation. The hearing then moved through the November 2025 family health estimate and several county and program administration issues, including CCS, GHPP, and Every Woman Counts. DHCS said family health costs are rising despite slight caseload declines because of higher utilization and medical costs, and members raised concerns about CCS website accessibility, county administrative funding, and the transition of youth aging out of CCS. The department said most CCS beneficiaries are also on Medi-Cal, that counties have long raised funding concerns, and that it had clarified use of maintenance-and-operations dollars to address some county workload issues. Members also asked about Every Woman Counts potentially seeing higher demand as Medi-Cal changes take effect; DHCS said that is possible and that the program has multiple funding sources including General Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on provider taxes and federal changes under H.R. 1, especially the Medi-Cal managed care organization tax and the hospital quality assurance fee. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 restricts new or increased health care-related taxes, phases down allowable tax levels over time, and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, which could sharply reduce the state’s ability to use the MCO tax for Medi-Cal financing. Members asked whether the Legislature could amend Prop. 35 or whether voters would need to act; DHCS said a three-fourths legislative amendment may be possible if it aligns with the measure’s purpose, but the department is still evaluating options. The committee also discussed hospital financing, with DHCS describing recent increases in state-directed payments and the effect of H.R. 1 in capping those payments at Medicare levels, and the LAO noting the tradeoff between preserving provider taxes and maintaining Medi-Cal funding. The subcommittee also reviewed a series of DHCS budget change proposals and trailer bill items, including managed care final-rule implementation, managed care operations, a hospital value strategy, a one-year extension of skilled nursing facility financing, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability/prior authorization requirements. Members repeatedly questioned the use of limited-term versus permanent positions, the overlap among proposals, and the timing of new financing reforms. DHCS said the SNF extension would preserve current workforce standards, sanctions, growth limits, and the SNF quality assurance fee while the department develops a broader 2027-28 redesign. No votes were taken; items were repeatedly held open for later action. Covered California then presented on the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit and the resulting affordability crisis. The agency said Californians will lose about $2.5 billion in premium assistance for 2026, average premiums could nearly double for many enrollees, and as many as 400,000 people could eventually leave marketplace coverage. Open enrollment ended with 1.9 million sign-ups, down 3% from the prior year, with especially steep declines among middle-income consumers and increased movement into bronze plans. Covered California said the state’s $190 million affordability subsidy is helping lower-income enrollees retain coverage, but cannot fully replace the lost federal assistance. Members also asked about the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund, repayment of loans from that fund, the status of federal review of California’s essential health benefits benchmark, and implementation of the new gender-affirming care benefit under AB 144.

Transcript Highlights:

• Has the county shared any perspectives on potential layoffs because of this elimination?
• Modification of the state share of IHSS growth and cost shift to the counties and the elimination of
• After accounting for the $15 million county share of costs and the state administrative target that we
• Counties will struggle to afford the cost shift.
• Counties will struggle to afford the cost shift.

Summary: The committee heard opening budget remarks from the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office on the May Revision for Health and Human Services. Finance said the proposal significantly reduces projected out-year operating deficits through a mix of revenue increases and program cost reductions, while the LAO warned that even with booming revenues the state still faces a structural deficit and should prioritize reserves and avoid new ongoing commitments. The chair and members echoed concern about cuts to vulnerable populations, but also noted the need to maintain the overall level of budget solutions and add to reserves. The hearing then moved through a series of CalHHS and HCAI proposals, mostly held open after presentation. CalHHS requested additional legal support to respond to federal H.R. 1-related issues and a net-zero transfer of positions for a shared eligibility/data-sharing platform. Other items included ongoing funding for the 988 Behavioral Health Crisis Service Fund and a request for EMSA to fund maintenance of its enterprise data management system. HCAI presented proposals for hospital fair pricing implementation, the data exchange framework, the all-payer claims database, CalRx insulin development, the diaper access initiative, distressed hospital grants, opioid settlement fund reversion, and the Rural Health Transformation Program. Members questioned funding sources, special fund use, contracting exemptions, timelines, and whether some proposals should be more targeted or supported by alternative funding. A major discussion centered on HCAI’s diaper access initiative and the use of a Public Contract Code exemption to continue contracting for free diapers distributed through hospitals. The chair and some members criticized the optics of the selected vendor and questioned the lack of an income threshold, while HCAI said the program was designed to be universal and administratively simple, with future phase-two direct-to-consumer purchasing to be handled by a different vendor. Another extended exchange focused on distressed hospital funding, where HCAI said the May Revision would provide up to $50 million for hospitals at immediate risk of closure, but members argued the repeated annual need shows a structural problem and asked for broader reforms to hospital payment and care transitions. The final major topic was the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission’s budget. The Commission opposed the May Revision’s reduction of the Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and a $6.7 million cut to community advocacy contracts, arguing both are core Proposition 1 tools for statewide innovation and community engagement. Finance responded that the proposal is within Proposition 1’s allowable maximums and that prior unspent appropriations could be redirected if the Legislature wanted to restore the full amount. No votes were taken; items were generally held open for later action.