Transcript Highlights:

• I can see the argument of limiting private property, but we have all sorts of laws that restrict what
• I don't think the numbers work as it it seems to me that this is um limiting it seems to me that this
• <00:21:16.320> their but why would you want to limit their but why would you want to limit
• Limited in how much production there can be.
• Very limited.

Bills: SB176, HB155, HB247, HB311, HB312, HB317, HB466, SB176, HB155, HB247, HB311, HB312, HB317, HB466

Keywords: controlled substances, unlawful distribution, marijuana, violent offense, sentencing guidelines, criminal justice, state holidays, federal holidays, public holidays, legal holidays, office closures, state employees, personal leave, compensatory leave, bank closures, school closures, Mardi Gras, Mobile County, Baldwin County, Rosa Parks Day

Transcript Highlights:

• To be respectful of everyone's time, you'll be limited to testimony of two minutes.
• Limit exposure to dangerous materials.
• And everybody's somewhat limited in what they... Say?
• Well, for this, I mean, this is a perfect example of why that limit is in place.
• There's no jurisdictional limit.

Bills: SB1361, SB2105, SB2690, SB2713, SCR38, SB2637, SB2881

Keywords: SB 1361, Texas disaster recovery loan, small business loan, micro-business loan, community development financial institution, CDFI, economic disaster assistance, post-disaster financing, business recovery fund, Texas Economic Development Bank, zero-interest loan, working capital, payroll support, health benefits, job retention, declared disaster, small business relief, microenterprise, franchise exclusion, private equity-backed business

Transcript Highlights:

• Bill 3793 would only apply to a county road that is located wholly or partly outside the corporate limits
• Webb County is we have a county road that is kind of sandwiched between municipal, uh, municipal limits
• , corporate limits.
• On the northern side, there is a residential subdivision wholly within the corporate limits of the city
• So we're seeing these issues where the, the city limit abuts the county road.

Bills: HB 341, HB 469, HB 971, HB 1624, HB 2721, HB 2959, HB 3365, HB 3731, HB 3793, HB 3861, HB 3946, HB 3966, HB 4348, HB 4401, HB 4402, HB 4924, HB 4966, HB 5563

Keywords: affordable housing, zoning, development, community support, local regulations, bicycle lanes, traffic collisions, Texas Department of Transportation, study, public safety, bicycles, electric bicycles, scooters, road safety, transportation study, commercial vehicle, safety standards, enforcement, Texas counties, transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• We're limiting testimony to two folks.
• Stability, and really limiting one of the states that is the previous testimony indicated, limiting one
• And this uncertainty issue is not limited... ...to future transactions.
• Do you remember when I said that I put the 60% limit in place?
• I mean... ...It can be time-limited, they can be ongoing.

Bills: HB21, HB211, HB223, HB323, HB524, HB530, HB636, HB762, HB21, HB211, HB223

Keywords: housing finance, multifamily residential, low income, tax exemption, audit requirements, affordable housing, local government, development bonds, housing assistance, financial assistance, low income housing, community support, affordability, veterans housing, community involvement, air conditioning, tenant support, healthcare, elderly, taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• We will be limiting testimony to three minutes.

Bills: HB21, HB211, HB223, HB323, HB524, HB530, HB636, HB762, HB21, HB211, HB223

Keywords: housing finance, multifamily residential, low income, tax exemption, audit requirements, affordable housing, local government, development bonds, housing assistance, financial assistance, low income housing, community support, affordability, veterans housing, community involvement, air conditioning, tenant support, healthcare, elderly, taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• Our review found that the recent growth in the senior caseload is due...
• So first, the most up-to-date caseload data does show that monthly caseloads have been running higher
• , and limited access to culturally competent services such as nutrition.
• CDPH can only spend these funds in extremely limited circumstances that almost...
• We have a lot of success stories in a program that's for a limited number of resources.

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:

• Long-term health caseload.
• And secondly, the allocations are based on each county's average caseload.
• For example, there's a revenue limit, and they've been considering reducing that revenue limit.
• The grant funds directly from DHCS, limiting our flexibility and efficiency.
• limited term positions and I'm a 33 permanent positions, 11 limited-term positions, and expenditure

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• As the tax spending limit has the lowest capacity, it is the current controlling limit. $1.2 billion.
• So as the tax spending limit has the lowest capacity, it is the current controlling limit.
• You know, those old disaster exemption limits—we need to be looking at the rollback limits because even
• A caseload in Harris County is not going to look the same as a caseload in Eastland, just to fix that
• A caseload in Harris County is not going to look the same as a caseload in Eastland, just to clarify

Bills: SB 1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It actually, I would say, limited it even more.
• Full caseloads that right now are—” “They already have full caseloads, full caseloads that right now
• “And that makes the caseload 12 to 15? Thank you.”
• What does that make the caseload?” “The caseloads we anticipate would be somewhere around 20.
• “I do have some employees that have a caseload upwards of 50, yes.

Bills: SB25, SB132, SB155, SB157, SB202, SB237, SB250, SB433

Keywords: registrar of voters, parish registrar, chief deputy registrar, confidential assistant, election administration, elections, salary schedule, compensation, merit evaluation, population-based pay, census-based pay, Department of State, Secretary of State, State Board of Election Supervisors, redistricting, senate districts, Senate District 33, Senate District 34, Senate District 35, precincts

Transcript Highlights:

• It's just right-sizing the numbers in terms of judges based on caseload and trials and cases.
• required for the judges to handle that caseload.
• or similar caseload.
• And the rest of the courts were on target with their caseloads?
• It removes the existing limitation that only applies. a condition of reinstatement.

Bills: HR265, HR266, HR267, HR268, HR269, HR270, HR271, HR272, HR273, HCR107, HCR108, HCR109, HCR110, HCR111, HR257, HR258, HR259, HR260, HR261, HR262, HR263, HCR105, HCR106, SCR30, SB57, SB157, SB202, SB237, SB276, SB450, SB465, SB501, SB525, HR3, HR80, HR197, HR243, SCR5, SCR35, HB4, HB623, HB944, HB986, HB1098, HB1222, SB34, SB164, SB172, SB198, SB208, SB232, SB281, SB286, SB317, SB322, SB334, SB380, SB385, SB409, SB417, SB421, SB430, SB439, SB447, SB458, SB510, SB398, HB646, HR84, HR188, HR205, SCR19, SCR3, SCR6, SCR18, SCR11, SCR22, SCR2, SCR20, SCR24, HCR6, HB301, HB359, HB657, HB675, HB680, HB727, HB302, HB819, HB1257, HB1258, SB8, SB10, SB11, SB12, SB13, SB14, SB16, SB17, SB18, SB20, SB21, SB22, SB40, SB48, SB55, SB69, SB75, SB77, SB78, SB85, SB102, SB115, SB133, SB140, SB148, SB151, SB165, SB169, SB170, SB185, SB197, SB200, SB217, SB235, SB278, SB280, SB291, SB300, SB303, SB315, SB324, SB330, SB411, SB416, SB420, SB436, SB438, SB449, SB455, SB456, SB477, SB489, SB521, SB45, SB58, SB71, SB81, SB92, SB100, SB109, SB141, SB156, SB181, SB203, SB204, SB205, SB207, SB213, SB214, SB216, SB229, SB257, SB274, SB290, SB304, SB374, SB379, SB396, SB410, SB425, SB427, SB429, SB479, SB522, HCR72, HB633, HB603, HB940, HB251, HB775, HB998, HB1191, HB625, HB1255, HB901, HR20, HR74, HCR65, HCR71, HB284, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB614, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1240, SB82, SB89, HB258, HB842, SB149, SB382, SB441

Keywords: Pineville High School, Lady Rebels, softball, LHSAA, Louisiana High School Athletic Association, Class 5A, state championship, high school sports, student athletes, commendation, resolution, athletics, girls softball, championship team, Pineville, school recognition, sportsmanship, coach Allison Frye, Louisiana legislature, House Resolution

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we're working on the reduction of caseloads.
• These people do not carry a caseload; their hours vary.
• Is it the caseloads, you know. Mr.
• And two is to reduce caseloads. You know, when someone leaves, what happens to those caseloads?
• What is the caseload that is too high?

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As long as you have limits. that's under your spending limits and constitutional limits, yes.
• So there's typically two limits.
• is the newest limit.
• It's similar to the tax spending limit, but it limits. different pots of money.
• limit is set.

Keywords: budget, House Bill 1, public education, healthcare, border security, federal funding, spending limits

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on reviewing the proposed budget for the upcoming biennium, with substantial discussions around House Bill 1 and its implications for public education, healthcare, and border security. The Comptroller presented a revenue overview indicating a total of $194.6 billion available for general purpose spending, which reflects a slight decrease compared to previous years due to fluctuating economic conditions. Members raised questions regarding spending limits and the impact of federal funding on state programs, highlighting concerns about the sustainability of funding in light of potential changes at the federal level.

Transcript Highlights:

• Adults, representing 22% of the caseload.
• County, opposing the limitations of this essential program.
• Often on a much more limited budget.
• Since 2023, the CalWORKs caseload has increased by nearly 9%.
• Funding for applications independent of caseload changes.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• November caseload forecasts for the committee.
• Now bringing in some of the information today related to caseloads.
• These are some of the caseloads that are up in that area.
• DCYF, Eric presented about the working connections caseload.
• The tort laws and the statutes of limitations and things like that.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a work session covering the state revenue outlook, caseload forecasts, wildfire costs, budget balance, tort liability, water supply, and pension policy. The Economic and Revenue Forecast Council reported modest near-term U.S. growth, no near-term Washington employment growth in 2026, continued personal income growth, and elevated inflation, with tariffs and federal policy cited as major risks. Revenue forecasts were slightly improved for the current biennium by about $105 million but down about $185 million for the next biennium. Members asked about income inequality and housing permits; staff said personal income is an aggregate measure and housing production remains below long-term needs. The Caseload Forecast Council then reported that most forecasts were unchanged or only slightly changed, but several programs increased, including Washington College Grant, Working Connections, aged/blind/disabled cash grants, nursing homes, home and community services, and developmental disabilities personal care. The largest policy-driven change was in Medicaid low-income adult caseloads, where federal H.R. 1 was projected to reduce coverage substantially through narrower eligibility, community engagement requirements, and shorter eligibility periods. The committee also heard a wildfire funding update and a 2025 fire season review. Staff explained that the state budgets $93 million annually for suppression and uses supplemental appropriations for costs above that level, with an estimated state supplemental need of about $139 million for the current year. Department of Natural Resources officials said 2025 fire activity remained below the 10-year average in acres burned, but fires were more complex and closer to communities, contributing to higher residence loss. They described expanded use of aircraft, firefighters from other states, corrections crews, and the Arcadia 20 hand crew, and said the state did not need National Guard ground support this year. A budget preview then showed that the near general fund outlook had worsened after vetoes, lapses, and forecast changes, and that maintenance-level costs alone would leave a projected negative balance by fiscal year 2027 and about $4.3 billion by fiscal year 2029, before any policy decisions. Jason Seams, the state risk manager, reported a sharp rise in tort claim costs, with indemnity expenses nearly doubling from fiscal year 2023 to 2025 and DCYF accounting for most of the increase. He said the state self-insurance liability account has run deficits for four straight biennia and is now facing nearly $600 million in deficits, driven largely by a surge in DCYF claims, especially juvenile rehabilitation and long-running sex abuse cases. Members asked about the role of old claims, comparisons with other states, excess insurance, and whether more Attorney General staff could reduce special assistant attorney general costs. The committee then shifted to water policy, hearing from tribal leaders, Ecology, and the Washington Water Trust. Tribal witnesses emphasized overappropriation, declining flows, climate impacts, and the need for legislative oversight and tribal participation in water policy. Ecology described major projects in the Odessa sub-area, Yakima Basin, and Dungeness, along with the need for storage, recharge, conservation, and policy changes to support water supply development. The Washington Water Trust argued that climate change is reducing summer flows and that the state needs more funding, enforcement, and long-term commitment to restore instream flows. The final item was a pension update on LEOFF 1 surplus assets; staff reviewed two 2025 bills that would have merged or restructured the plan and used surplus assets, but neither passed, and instead the budget directed the Select Committee on Pension Policy to study the issue and report back.

Transcript Highlights:

• The law does not specify any limits on how long treatment programs can last.
• So looking at a caseload increase by the thousands is what I've been told.
• That impacts our caseloads. Our caseloads are already overextended.
• We have funding issues for those caseloads. We have facility needs.
• The CPI went up 60%, and our caseload skyrocketed.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on Proposition 36 and its implementation, with judicial and budget officials describing it as a major shift from misdemeanor to felony processing for repeat drug possession and certain theft offenses. Witnesses explained that the law creates a treatment-mandated felony process that can lead to dismissal if a defendant completes treatment, but also requires evaluations, court monitoring, and potentially long, open-ended supervision. Judicial representatives said the new law is already generating large numbers of filings, creating workload, staffing, courtroom, and facility pressures, and that access to treatment beds, housing, and evaluation capacity is limiting participation. Several speakers emphasized that collaborative courts are effective but are not a perfect fit for Prop. 36 because those programs are typically probation-based and serve different risk/need populations. Court officials from San Bernardino and Orange counties said the impacts vary by county but are severe, with some counties seeing hundreds or more filings in a short period and others moving more slowly to build treatment infrastructure first. They argued that Prop. 36 is effectively an unfunded mandate unless the state provides more resources for judges, staff, facilities, treatment, housing, and supervision. The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that Prop. 36 will reduce the Proposition 47 savings that fund mental health and substance use treatment grants, but said the near-term reduction is relatively modest and that the full effect will take time to appear because of the way those savings are calculated. Members of the committee repeatedly raised concerns that the state is underfunding the courts and counties needed to carry out the new law. The committee also reviewed the Governor’s proposed trial court operations budget, including a partial restoration of a prior $97 million cut and additional ongoing funding. Judicial branch officials said the restoration helped avoid furloughs, hiring freezes, and service reductions, and supported cybersecurity, technology, staffing, and records management. The LAO recommended that the Legislature seek more detail on how midyear restorations are handled and consider clarifying language for transferring unspent trial court trust fund monies to the General Fund. Finance said the flexibility in the ongoing funding was intentional and would be taken back for consideration. In a separate item, the committee heard testimony on a $6.3 million increase for Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal appointed counsel programs. Judicial officials and appellate project representatives said the system is facing a crisis because indigent appeals have risen sharply while the number of panel attorneys has fallen, leaving many cases waiting months for counsel. They argued the proposed increase would help but is still below what is needed to recruit and retain attorneys and prevent delays that affect criminal, juvenile, and child welfare cases. The committee also discussed the Tracy courthouse project in San Joaquin County, where local officials said reopening a courthouse closed since 2011 is necessary to serve a growing population and relieve overcrowding elsewhere. The LAO and Finance both noted the project is next in line under the facilities plan, though LAO suggested the Legislature could consider whether other facility priorities should come first.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have not seen that caseload decline.
• And limitations?
• What limitations are there?
• We are opposed to the reinstatement of the Medi-Cal asset test limit, as that will limit access to IHSS
• And so that is time-limited.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• So patchwork to a 30 year old system, there's limitations.
• Chip caseloads are projected to increase by 34% in 26 and 4.5%.
• And so I'm going to be a little bit limited in what I can say.
• Our big cost driver on that page is our caseload growth.
• As a result, our caseload does grow.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Public comment will be limited to 30 seconds per individual.
• Second, under SIBTF, pre-existing conditions do not have to be work-limiting.
• So it's a very high caseload.
• Which is a very high caseload.
• What if we change those time limitations and eliminate those cases?

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on State Administration heard presentations on the Department of Industrial Relations’ labor-related budget items, with the main focus on proposed trailer bill language to reform the Subsequent Injury Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) and a related budget change proposal for staffing. DIR said SIBTF has grown far beyond its original purpose, citing the 2020 Todd decision, expanded eligibility based on chronic or asymptomatic conditions, and a backlog that has grown to more than 30,000 pending cases. The administration argued the reforms would restore guardrails, reduce liabilities and employer assessments, and speed processing for severely injured workers; the LAO said the proposal was largely consistent with its prior recommendations. Members raised concerns about using trailer bill language for major policy changes, the retroactive application to open cases, and the impact on workers already in the queue, while supporters from employer groups and public agencies backed the proposal as necessary to control costs and restore sustainability. Public comment was split, with injured-worker advocates opposing the retroactive changes and business/public employer representatives supporting the reforms. The committee then heard the SIBTF workload request, which would phase in 177 positions over five years at a cost of $36.5 million, including staff for the Division of Workers’ Compensation, the Office of the Director Legal Unit, and administrative support. DIR said the additional staffing is intended to address very high caseloads and reduce processing times, but emphasized that the request assumes the reform package is adopted; LAO agreed the staffing increase made sense if paired with reforms. Members asked about vacancy rates, current staffing, and whether the workload request would become the new normal, and DIR said it would monitor caseload trends and adjust future requests as needed. Finally, the committee received an update on the California Workplace Outreach Program (CWOP), which DIR described as a partnership with community-based organizations to educate workers and help employers comply with labor laws. DIR reported that CWOP has reached 1.75 million workers and employers and made 8 million touchpoints since 2020, with the current round awarding $50.7 million to 87 partners for a two-year period through June 2027. Members and public commenters highlighted the program’s role in reaching immigrant, farmworker, janitorial, nail salon, and other vulnerable communities, and several speakers urged continued funding at $30 million per year for five years. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• As long as you have limits. That's under your spending limits and constitutional limits, yes.
• So there's typically two limits.
• We have several spending limits.
• is the newest limit.
• It's similar to the tax spending limit, but it limits. different pots of money.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The law does not specify any limits on how long treatment programs can last.
• What that does is impact our caseloads.
• Our caseloads are already over We have funding issues for those caseloads.
• The EPI went up 60% and our caseload skyrocketed.
• And to oversee accountability measures and supervise an expanded caseload.

Keywords: 988, house, all