Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:10:46.880><c> limit</c><00:10:47.160><c> for</c> entirely and increase income limit for entirely
• The reduced lunch income limit is 185% of the federal poverty level.
• to</c><00:42:54.600><c> receive</c> income limits for families to receive income limits for families
• And the food stamp or SNAP income limit.
• <00:43:08.280><c> the</c><00:43:08.400><c> federal</c> income limit is 185% of the federal income limit

Committee: Senate Families & Children

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This can be exacerbated for programs that scale the benefit amount based on income.
• There are limitations to how data can be used.
• The income levels are slightly different with Medi-Cal.
• And guaranteed income.
• This funding typically limits services to approximately... 6% of the income-eligible population in a

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Because the FAFSA reports annual income versus the income required for CalFresh, which is the last 30
• days of income, as well as because it provides income retrospectively, in some cases it could be up
• So, for example, we look at gross monthly income versus something like taxable income.
• So, for example, we look at gross monthly income versus something like taxable income.
• individual income.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Current MassHealth eligibility requires individuals applying for a waiver just above the income limit
• It allows PACE applicants to access community-based care, paying what they are over the income limit,
• Current MassHealth eligibility requires individuals applying for a waiver just above the income limit
• It allows PACE applicants to access community-based care, paying what they are over-income limit, rather
• So if someone has an income of $2,920, that's when that $542 allowance of income comes into play.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Health Care Financing

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing focused on two broad sets of issues: home- and community-based care, and school-based Medicaid reimbursement. In the morning session, legislators and advocates testified on bills affecting children and disabled enrollees, including proposals to clarify rate-setting for home health and home care services (H. 767/S. 870), allow family members and spouses to be paid caregivers under MassHealth (H. 1394/S. 886 and related bills), extend MassHealth coverage for applied behavior analysis and other therapies beyond age 21 for adults with autism and developmental disabilities (H. 1351/S. 871), and protect medically fragile children by improving access to continuous skilled nursing. In the later portion of the hearing, testimony shifted to a bill to improve MassHealth reimbursement for schools (S. 862), with speakers describing the school mental health crisis and the need to reinvest Medicaid funds directly into school health services. Witnesses on the home care rate-setting bill said current reimbursement methods are opaque and outdated, contributing to workforce shortages, unfilled shifts, long waitlists, and patients remaining in hospitals longer than necessary. Home care providers and trade groups argued the bill would not set rates directly but would require more transparent methodology and fuller consideration of real costs such as wages, benefits, taxes, training, and technology. On caregiver bills, many family members and provider organizations described the financial and emotional strain of caring for disabled or medically fragile relatives, especially when parents, spouses, or guardians are barred from being paid caregivers. They argued the bills would recognize existing unpaid care, help families remain at home, and reduce reliance on more expensive institutional care. Advocates for adult ABA coverage said services remain medically necessary after age 21 and that ending coverage at that age creates an inequitable “cliff” for MassHealth members compared with those with private insurance. For the PACE/community care bill, elder law attorneys and PACE advocates said current MassHealth income rules force some older adults with modestly higher incomes to spend down to $542 per month, making community living unrealistic and pushing people toward nursing homes. They supported changing the eligibility structure to a premium-based approach that would allow more people to remain in the community. On the school Medicaid bill, advocates said schools are providing effective, preventive mental health care, but reimbursement currently flows to municipalities rather than directly back to school health budgets, limiting districts’ ability to hire and retain staff. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee heard testimony and several witnesses requested favorable reports on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• This would include things like increasing the income limit for individuals eligible for indigent care
• Both of those things are exemptions to the HR1 work limit or time limit requirements.
• What is your income today?
• Our 35 smallest counties have very limited resources to raise revenue, with high poverty rates and low-income
• Because I know that's limited, right? We would have to get back to you. It's not limited.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Under three thresholds based on each county's median income, an applicant's combined disposable income
• For example, those qualifying at income threshold one must have an income at or below 50% of their county
• median income.
• Those income thresholds and exemption limits are summarized in your bill analysis.
• There is a section that limits the exemption to $500,000.

Summary: House Finance held public hearings on several tax and property-related bills. HB 2584 would create a sales and use tax exemption for qualifying farm machinery and equipment purchased by eligible farmers, with supporters arguing it would ease financial pressure on farmers, encourage investment in more efficient and environmentally friendly equipment, and help rural economies. County officials opposed extending the exemption to local sales taxes, warning of cumulative revenue losses for local governments. HB 2376 would consolidate the state school property tax levy and expand property tax relief for seniors, people with disabilities, and veterans by raising income thresholds, increasing exemption amounts, and simplifying the income calculation; county assessors and local officials supported the bill as a way to help residents age in place, while opponents argued it would raise taxes for others and weaken the 1% cap. HB 2610 would broaden the nonprofit homeownership development property tax exemption to allow limited interim rental or community use without losing the exemption, and testimony from affordable housing groups supported the change as a practical way to keep projects moving and reduce costs. HB 2615 would codify the Department of Revenue’s voluntary disclosure program and create a temporary tax amnesty period for certain unpaid business taxes; supporters said it would bring businesses into compliance and generate revenue, while one sponsor noted technical issues still needed to be resolved. In executive session, the committee advanced four bills. HB 2194, allowing a county and city within it to concurrently impose a cultural access program sales tax, passed 10-5. Substitute HB 2257, a broad tax code cleanup and technical changes bill, passed unanimously 15-0 after members said it clarified ambiguities from prior legislation. HB 2528, which would remove voter-approval requirements for certain cities to impose a local real estate excise tax, passed 11-4 despite objections that it reduced voter control over tax increases. HB 2175, exempting certain nonprofit providers of free durable medical equipment from sales tax on repair parts, also passed unanimously 15-0. The chair announced that HB 2584, HB 2610, and HB 2615 would be scheduled for executive action the following day, with no amendments allowed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Your testimony will be limited, however, to state only your name, organization, or what jurisdiction
• Your testimony will be limited, however, to state only your name, organization, or what jurisdiction
• It's extraordinarily important that you not limit an individual's choice to their mortgage lender.
• Californians with disabilities, older adults on fixed incomes, people without stable income, or with
• low income cannot afford housing.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing met without a quorum at first and operated as a subcommittee, then later established a quorum and took up several housing-related bills. Early presentations included AB 2390, a cleanup bill on housing streamlining and project modifications, which was described as clarifying that minor and subsequent modifications are reviewed under the standards in effect when the original application was filed; there was no opposition, and the bill was moved on a due pass motion but held on call for absent members. AB 1890, which would increase state matching support for Napa County farmworker housing centers from $250,000 to $500,000 annually and extend the program through 2036, drew strong support from Napa County officials, the Farm Bureau, hospitals, and vintners, and was also moved to Appropriations and held on call. AB 956, an ADU bill allowing more flexibility in how accessory dwelling units are built and clarifying application of ADU law in common interest developments, drew support from housing advocates and opposition from the League of California Cities over density, infrastructure, and local control concerns; the committee discussed amendments to avoid triggering density bonus law, then passed the bill as amended to Local Government, with some members expressing reservations or abstaining. The consent calendar, including AB 739, AB 2162, AB 2320, and AB 2692, was also acted on and held on call for absent members. Later, the committee heard AB 939, which would remove a 180-day resale restriction for certain income-restricted ownership units when a nonprofit affordable housing organization is ready to buy and sell them to qualified low-income buyers. Supporters, including Habitat for Humanity and California YIMBY, said the bill would reduce vacancy, carrying costs, and delays in getting affordable homes to buyers; the California Association of Realtors opposed unless amended, arguing the bill could limit buyer choice, codify first-right-of-refusal provisions, and reduce wealth-building opportunities. Members questioned those concerns, and the author said amendments were being worked on; the bill was moved to Appropriations and held on call. AB 1165, the California Housing Justice Act, would require state housing agencies to develop a fiscal analysis and long-term financial plan for ending homelessness and addressing housing affordability; it received broad support from supportive housing, civil rights, and homelessness organizations, with no opposition filed, and was moved to Appropriations and held on call. AB 1184, an HOA transparency bill requiring more notice and access around litigation and recordings, was moved to Judiciary after discussion about whether it duplicated existing HOA law and whether the proposed amendments were too broad. AB 2035, a narrowly tailored bill for Laguna Woods Village to lower the vote threshold needed to petition a court to amend outdated CC&Rs, was supported as a one-time fix and moved to Judiciary. Finally, AB 1573, pulled from consent, would add survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking to housing element target populations; supporters said these groups are overrepresented among people experiencing housing instability and should be explicitly included in local housing planning.

Transcript Highlights:

• 24.960><c> or</c> 4D income low-income rental housing, or 4D income low-income rental housing, or 3A<
• </c> the living allowance as earned income. the living allowance as earned income.
• from Minnesota taxable income are included in adjusted gross income.
• </c> Well, Madam Chair, it's not a limit. Well, Madam Chair, it's not a limit.
• It's not a limit.

Committee: Senate Taxes

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The second is potentially crowding out our lowest income families. income families.
• limits.
• And then, knowing that again, 80% of New Mexicans are at or below 400, we are removing the income limit
• Madam Secretary, speaking of the income limits, you note that 33% had income levels below 400, but that
• Because we have it all modeled based on our track record of uptake when we increase income limits.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In general, it's the ALICE population: asset limited, income constrained, and employed.
• My name is Tyler Phillips, and I am currently a law student with limited income.
• Limiting income forces people to create their own income, which is what I meant when I said...
• Limiting income forces people to create their own income, which is what I meant when I said many parents
• If Congress can justify—and I understand this is not Congress—insider trading using their limited income

Committee: Senate Local & Municipal Affairs

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• households or 20% if it is for very low-income households.
• The real property that provides housing for low-income households owned by a limited equity cooperative
• Additionally, the ability to complete mixed-income projects helps lessen the reliance on limited public
• I will just add that in addition to limiting equity when the owner goes to sell, there's also a limit
• This will make homes more affordable for many middle-income and lower-income folks. Thank you.

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee held public hearings on four bills and then took executive action on several measures and two gubernatorial appointments. At the start, the committee waived the five-day notice rule for Substitute House Bill 2354, Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2266, and Second Substitute House Bill 2590. The committee also heard public testimony on House Bill 1859, which would expand affordable housing on property owned by religious organizations by lowering the affordability threshold needed to qualify for a density bonus. Supporters, including the sponsor, faith leaders, and local officials, said the current 100% affordability requirement has made projects difficult to finance and that the bill would better unlock underused church land for housing. The committee then heard Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2266, which would further standardize where and how permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, and shelters can be sited, while limiting local barriers and allowing some negotiated conditions near schools or when local governments provide significant support. The sponsor and supporters from King County, housing providers, the Attorney General’s office, disability advocates, medical professionals, and others argued the bill would reduce discriminatory or inconsistent local siting rules and expand needed housing. Some local government representatives supported the bill but asked for additional amendments to preserve local flexibility, require on-site contacts, and clarify how operating conditions and funding agreements would work. The committee also heard House Bill 2590, which would revise rules for limited equity cooperatives so they can better function as a long-term affordable homeownership model and remain exempt from certain Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act requirements. Supporters said the bill would help preserve manufactured housing communities and other cooperative housing while maintaining affordability and oversight. House Bill 2354, a trailer bill to WACOIA, would make technical changes affecting common interest communities, including EV charging and heat pump cost responsibility, reserve studies, and audit thresholds; the Washington State Community Association’s Institute testified in support. In executive session, the committee confirmed gubernatorial appointments Aaron T. McGrath and Ann T. Malone and voted do-pass recommendations for EHB 1687, SHB 2269, and HB 2304, all subject to signatures.

Transcript Highlights:

• This would include things like increasing the income limit for individuals eligible for indigent care
• Their eligibility requirements, notably household income and ages, benefits to provide, either limited
• What is your income today?
• Our 35 smallest counties have very limited resources to raise revenue, with high poverty rates and low-income
• Our 35 smallest counties have very limited resources to raise revenue, with high poverty rates and low-income

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:

• Now there are limits to the amount of the deduction, and the deduction phases out based on income.
• Let's say that taxpayer, when combined with the income of their spouse, um, they have $600,000 income
• So it's not the total income.
• Correct. taxable income. I will now turn it back taxable income.
• . limited down to $10,000 tax deduction. limited down to $10,000 tax deduction.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Major Tax Provisions in H.R. 1 (Public Law 119-21) 00:02:45 Kentucky’s Workforce 00:33:35, 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and heard a brief member introduction before taking up an overview of major tax provisions in HR1, referred to by the presenters as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Representatives from the Kentucky Society of CPAs explained new federal deductions for tips, overtime, and car loan interest; a new tax-favored “Trump account” for children; expanded bonus depreciation and Section 179 expensing for businesses; changes to R&D expensing; and a new limit on wagering loss deductions. Members asked several clarifying questions about the duration of the provisions, W-2 and 1099 reporting changes, and how overtime deductions would work. The presenters emphasized that tips and overtime remain subject to payroll taxes and that many of the business provisions are permanent, while the individual deductions are temporary through 2028 or otherwise phased in over time. The discussion then shifted to individual and nonprofit provisions, including the increase in the state and local tax itemized deduction cap from $10,000 to $40,000 with income-based phaseouts, the temporary senior deduction, and a new deduction for car loan interest with income limits and vehicle qualifications. On charitable giving, the presenters described a permanent nonitemizer deduction, new floors for individual and corporate charitable deductions, and a new scholarship-granting organization credit that would allow donors to receive a dollar-for-dollar federal credit up to $1,700, beginning in 2027. Members focused heavily on the SGO provision, asking about state implementation, oversight, whether churches would qualify, and whether the credit could support both public and private education. The presenters said the state would need to establish the mechanism and that additional federal guidance is still pending. After the tax presentation, the committee heard from the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce on workforce issues, with a focus on child care and housing as barriers to labor force participation. Chamber representatives said they were not proposing large new government programs, but rather targeted policy recommendations for the 2026 session. They described Kentucky’s long-term decline in workforce participation since 2000, attributing much of it to demographic change, an aging population, and fewer younger workers entering the labor force. The presentation continued into a broader discussion of workforce trends and the need for practical policy responses, but no votes or formal actions were taken on these informational items.

Transcript Highlights:

• The annual growth of the regular property tax levy revenue is limited by levy growth limits, and in addition
• providing owned housing to low-income households, remain as is.
• LECs promote home ownership for medium-income individuals two ways: by limiting their initial investment
• Microsoft had a net income of $102 billion in 2025. Avista had a net income of over $200 million.
• Avista had a net income of over $200 million.

Summary: The committee heard several public hearings on tax and housing-related bills. HB 2451 on local tax increment financing was briefed as a negotiated trailer bill adding new limits and consultation requirements for increment areas, including restrictions on using areas that already have needed public improvements, earlier sunset rules, more detailed project analysis, and stronger notice, mediation, and arbitration procedures for affected taxing districts. Supporters from cities, ports, and fire districts said the bill rebalances the process and protects impacted jurisdictions; the hearing then closed. HB 2322 would change the alternative jet fuel tax incentive program by replacing the current production-capacity trigger with a fixed effective period beginning in 2031 and ending in 2046, while clarifying carbon-intensity requirements. The sponsor said the change adds certainty and supports cleaner aviation fuel. A refinery representative supported the program but asked for clarification to include Pierce County or define “blender,” while a climate-health opponent argued the bill subsidizes continued fossil-fuel combustion and should be rejected. HB 2590 would revise the limited equity cooperative definition and exempt such cooperatives from WUCIOA unless they opt in, while preserving the property-tax exemption requirements; supporters said it would reduce red tape and better fit cooperative housing, while members raised concerns about unintended restrictive membership rules and asked for fair-housing guardrails. HB 2655 would create a new sales and use tax exemption for construction and equipment at certain new data centers in eastern Washington, subject to labor, wage, apprenticeship, employment, and sustainability requirements. Supporters framed it as a jobs and clean-energy opportunity tied to hydrogen development and regional competitiveness, while opponents said it was a subsidy for large corporations and could strain water, power, and public revenues. The committee then moved to executive action and advanced HB 1983, the second substitute for HB 1974, the substitute for HB 2334, HB 2367, and the substitute for HB 2650, all with due pass recommendations. Amendments were adopted on HB 1974 and rejected on HB 2367; the other bills were advanced without amendment. Votes were recorded on each measure, with HB 1974 passing 10-4, HB 2334 passing 13-1, HB 2367 passing 11-3, and HB 2650 passing 14-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• You make, if you are a family of four, and you make $1 more than the income limit, which is about $128,000
• I didn't put time limits on, but we all know that there are time limits on us.
• Today, there isn't anything specific in the law that limits it to this bill that limits it to a certain
• income level.
• As a percentage of your income, if you're making $5 million a year, 8.5% of your income is like $255,000

Committee: House House Health & Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• I would hate to limit it to only households under a certain income.
• I would hate to limit it to only households under a certain income in certain areas.
• So why limit it to only lower-income households? Thank you for the question. A couple of things.
• But I'm not sure why we're limiting it to lower-income households.
• But I'm not sure why we're limiting it to lower income household.

Summary: The committee heard several bills, with the most detailed discussion focused on AB 316, AB 251, AB 474, AB 1201, AB 464, and AB 614. AB 316 would prevent AI developers or deployers from arguing in civil cases that an AI system’s alleged autonomy absolves them of responsibility. Supporters framed it as a narrow guardrail to protect families, especially children, from harms like dangerous chatbots and deepfakes; opponents, including TechNet and the Chamber of Progress, raised concerns about possible strict-liability implications. The bill was moved out of committee to Privacy and Consumer Protection. AB 251 would let judges lower the burden of proof in elder abuse cases when a skilled nursing facility or RCFE intentionally destroys evidence. Supporters said the measure is needed because elder abuse victims are often unable to testify and records are vulnerable to spoliation, while opponents argued existing sanctions are sufficient and warned of more litigation. The bill passed, with committee members emphasizing the vulnerability of elder abuse victims. AB 474 sought to expand nonprofit home-sharing programs, including tax incentives for low-income homeowners and changes to housing law and lodger rules. Supporters said it would help older adults and low-income Californians avoid homelessness, but several members and the California Apartment Association raised concerns about removing lodger-law protections for homeowners; the author committed to keep working on the issue. The bill passed to Human Services. AB 1201 would give courts discretion to provide family reunification services to parents with certain violent felony convictions, rather than applying an automatic bypass. Supporters from Starting Over Inc. described personal experiences with permanent family separation and argued the bill would give parents a fair chance when the conviction is unrelated to child safety. Some members supported the measure but questioned whether domestic violence histories should be treated differently; the author said the bill still allows courts to deny services when reunification would endanger a child. The bill passed to Human Services. AB 464 addressed sexual abuse and retaliation in state prisons by extending reporting time after release, adding 90-day monitoring after reports, barring rehiring of confirmed abusers, and strengthening reporting and anti-retaliation rules. Survivors testified about abuse, retaliation, and failures in CDCR’s response; the bill passed to Appropriations. AB 614 would standardize the Government Claims Act filing deadline at one year for all claims. The author and supporters argued the current six-month deadline for injury and wrongful death claims is too short for victims to learn the process, find counsel, and gather evidence, while businesses often get a full year. A civil rights attorney and a family member of a deceased jail detainee testified in support, describing how the current deadline can block meritorious claims. The bill was presented for committee consideration as the hearing continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• No one is asking for the elimination of state income tax.
• Once the individual income tax is reduced to 1.4%, total income tax would be eliminated altogether.
• And then the max annual income tax cut is 1.6%.
• Lowering the income tax and eventually removing the income tax will stop the bleed in the state of Missouri—the
• I said before, I'm a lower middle income... ...I said before, I'm a lower middle income, maybe even lower

Committee: House Commerce

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• To qualify, renting households must have incomes below income limits, which for 2022 was about 70,000
• By raising the maximum credit and income limits, more renters will have additional funds to cover basic
• By raising the maximum credit and income limits, more renters will have additional funds to cover basic
• Alliance does for people, you know, that it's income-limited; a lot of their clients are people coming
• </c><01:20:17.239><c> their</c> that it's income limited a lot of their that it's income limited a lot

Committee: House Taxes

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• is property and therefore income is subject to the uniformity clause and the 1% limit in our state constitution
• It puts a limitation on who can be taxed by this income tax.
• It puts a limitation on who can be taxed by this income tax.
• income.
• Madam Speaker, supporters of the income tax say it will be limited to wealthy people, but in Olympia

Bills: HB2720 , HB2073 , SB5816 , SB5919 , SB5831 , SB6244 , SB6044 , SB5109 , SB5877 , SB6258

Keywords: behavioral health, emergency services, health insurance, provider access, mental health funding, premium assistance, funding, healthcare, subsidies, juice grapes, agriculture, commerce, state regulation, market access, fire safety, insurance incentives, best practices, community protection, voluntary measures, mortgage modification

Transcript Highlights:

• limits.
• limits.
• So speaking of the income limits, you note that 33% had income levels below 400%.
• limits.
• limits.

Summary: The committee heard first from LFC staff on a brief about New Mexico’s universal child care expansion. Staff said child care assistance has clear benefits for parents and families, but LFC has not found evidence in New Mexico that it improves children’s educational outcomes; they argued pre-K is the better tool for that goal. The brief highlighted four concerns with universal access: an estimated annual cost of about $849.7 million, a sharp decline in registered homes, possible crowding out of lower-income families, and reduced access for children under age two. Staff also suggested possible mitigations such as prioritizing slots for low-income and at-risk families, reinstating sliding-scale co-pays, and tying quality improvements to workforce wages. Members raised questions about the cost estimate, funding sources, provider quality, and whether the data showed actual crowding out. Several lawmakers expressed support for child care generally but concern about the fiscal impact and whether universal access would divert resources from the families most in need. Others emphasized the importance of child care for workforce participation, rural communities, and family stability, and questioned how registered homes are counted and regulated. LFC staff clarified that the cost estimate was for child care assistance only, not the entire ECECD budget, and that the data showed declines in the share of lowest-income children and infants/toddlers served, though not causation. The ECECD secretary then presented the department’s response, saying universal child care is intended to complete a cradle-to-career system and that the department has already seen strong uptake, increased capacity, and rising workforce participation. She said 6,206 families were found eligible in the first month, the share of infants and toddlers served rose, and new provider applications and licensed slots increased after the November rollout. The department also emphasized wage increases, quality improvements, and a new wage scale/career lattice, while projecting a lower near-term cost than LFC’s estimate and requesting additional funding for child care, early pre-K, home visiting, workforce systems, and capacity-building. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided; the discussion was informational and focused on questions and testimony.