Transcript Highlights:

• , such as registered apprenticeship programs, pre-apprenticeship programs, or Be Pro Be Proud program
• or youth programs, or is this the program now?
• not the DWS program, but the PED program, is that it's grant money; it's soft-funded.
• How does this program differ from other existing programs?
• It's not just union programs. It goes to all state-certified apprenticeship programs.

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The House Labor, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee met with a quorum and first addressed a point of order over whether HB 270 could be heard after being taken up earlier in the Transportation Committee. The chair ruled the bill could proceed because it was assigned to this committee and had been properly noticed. The committee then heard HB 280, which would create a three-year pilot program to support paid student internships through grants administered by the Department of Workforce Solutions. Supporters said the bill would help fund internships, mentoring, and transportation, and could improve workforce development, graduation outcomes, and pathways into apprenticeships or higher education. Members asked about administrative costs, student selection, rural and tribal access, payment mechanisms, and whether public entities, land grants, and dual credit could be included. The bill sponsor and witnesses said the program would likely serve about 100 students, use a sliding-scale matching model, and allow local flexibility in program design. The committee voted due pass on HB 280. The committee then heard House Memorial 46, honoring the Hurley family and especially Major General Patrick Hurley and his son Wilson Hurley for military service and artistic contributions in New Mexico. The memorial was presented as a tribute to a family of heroes, and members expressed support. The committee voted due pass on the memorial. Finally, the committee heard HB 270, which would amend the Public Works Apprentice and Training Act to require contributions to apprenticeship and training programs on most public works projects, including road and utility work, while exempting trades without approved programs. Sponsors said the bill would close loopholes, broaden participation, and strengthen the workforce pipeline. Opposition came from asphalt, contractor, and utility groups, which argued the bill would raise costs, duplicate existing training programs, and create access problems for nonunion and geographically distant contractors. Supporters from mechanical contractors, building trades, and labor groups said the bill would improve workforce development and keep training dollars in New Mexico. After debate over the earlier Transportation Committee action and the bill’s cost impacts, the committee voted due pass on HB 270 by a 5-3 roll call.

Transcript Highlights:

• Bill, including the federal-aid and non-federal-aid highway programs and two popular grant programs:
• the Municipal Pavement Program and the Shared Streets and Spaces municipal grant program.
• The CTF has been used effectively for the Accelerated Bridge Program and Rail Enhancement Program in
• The Rail Enhancement Program...
• Some of these new programs, like the FAIR Program for municipally owned bridges and the rail...

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets held a public hearing on H. 5279, a bill financing long-term improvements to municipal roads and bridges. MassDOT and A&F testified in support, describing the bill as a more than $5 billion transportation bond package centered on a four-year, $1.2 billion Chapter 90 authorization, plus funding for MBTA rail reliability and modernization, housing-related transportation improvements, a new DCR/MassDOT PRISM program for parkways and other DCR assets, and reauthorizations of the Municipal Pavement Program, Shared Streets and Spaces, and highway programs. They said the bill would support safety, resilience, housing production, and multimodal transportation, and noted that some bonds could be issued as special obligation bonds backed by the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues. Committee members asked about the size and structure of the authorizations, the federal match for highway projects, the source of MBTA vehicle procurement, bridge repair needs, and whether the housing-related funds could be used flexibly for items like sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stops, and other local transportation improvements. Administration witnesses said the bill is intended as a temporary refill of existing programs until a larger transportation bond bill is filed next session, that the federal-aid line includes the full spending authority while the state only borrows the 20% match, and that the housing-related program is deliberately broad and not limited to MBTA communities. They also said Chapter 90 includes a road-mile component that especially helps rural communities and that preservation and safety are built into the programs. The Massachusetts Municipal Association also testified in strong support, emphasizing that Chapter 90 is the most important tool municipalities have to maintain the roughly 30,000 miles of local roads and bridges they are responsible for. MMA urged timely passage before construction season and praised the continued $300 million Chapter 90 level, especially the $100 million road-mile distribution that helps communities with large road networks and smaller populations. No votes were taken on the bill, and the hearing concluded with adjournment after testimony ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• this program.
• And so all of our programs must become federal program.
• I did not introduce this wily and doctor Marino as being 2 of our 35 programs were program, which is
• It's a transition program.
• But we have people who already understand the program already bought into the program.

Transcript Highlights:

• programs.
• programs decreased.
• of program types completing the program over that time.
• with traditional programs.
• Loan Forgiveness Program.

Summary: The committee first approved the May 18 meeting minutes and then received a Legislative Audit presentation summarizing Arkansas Department of Education grant distributions for fiscal year 2025. Auditors said the department distributed about $4.6 billion in grants overall, including $3.2 billion from the Public School Fund, $1.1 billion in federal funds, and $268 million from other state and miscellaneous sources, across 56 Public School Fund programs, 14 other state programs, and 29 federal programs. Members asked about specific recipients and programs, including ClassWallet, master principal bonuses, Economics Arkansas, and CDC surveillance funding; audit staff and Department of Education representatives explained that the report was only a distribution summary and not a recipient-level audit. Members also questioned why many districts showed lower funding, and staff said the decline was largely due to reduced federal and one-time COVID-related funds. Senators and representatives also discussed whether some incentive programs, such as master principal and national board bonuses, were tied to student outcomes, and whether Economics Arkansas was the sole entity named in special language for financial literacy funding; department staff said they would follow up on several details. The committee then heard a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on consumer price index projections from Moody’s Analytics and S&P Global, with discussion of CPI-U and core CPI estimates for future fiscal years. Dr. Carlos Silva explained that the forecasts generally trend toward about 2 percent over time and that recent projections may have understated actual inflation because of recent shocks. Members asked about the accuracy of past projections, and he said he would provide more detail later if needed. The bulk of the meeting focused on the final adequacy report on teacher recruitment, retention, and salaries. BLR staff reported that Arkansas had about 32,800 teachers and 473,000 students in 2025, with a statewide student-to-teacher ratio of about 14 to 1, average teaching experience of 11.9 years, and a slight increase in National Board Certified teachers. The report found that districts with higher poverty and minority concentrations generally had less experienced teachers, and that teacher shortages remained widespread, especially in special education, math, science, and foreign language. Members asked about licensure exceptions, alternative preparation pathways, incentives for ESL and special education endorsements, and the cost and return on investment of traditional versus alternative routes. Staff said some licensure exceptions are being phased out under Act 304 of 2025 and that they would follow up on several requested details. The report also found that teacher retention averaged 87 percent statewide in 2025, with districts retaining teachers at higher rates than charters, and that 30 percent of surveyed teachers were considering leaving the profession. Principals and teachers identified school leadership as the strongest positive factor in recruitment and retention, while workload and salary were the strongest negative factors. On salaries, BLR reported a statewide average teacher salary of $60,254 in 2025, with districts averaging $60,458 and charters $55,724. Arkansas ranked 45th nationally on average teacher salary in 2025, though its cost-adjusted ranking improved to 36th; among SREB states it ranked 12th, and among neighboring states it ranked fourth. Members asked about starting salaries, salary compression, district step increases, and whether the report should be shared more broadly with educators and school leaders. Staff said they would provide follow-up information on several questions, and the committee took no formal action beyond receiving the presentations and asking for additional data.

Transcript Highlights:

• amounts available under this program. amounts available under this program.
• And those programs.
• <00:58:46.000> Thank program. Thank you for your time. Thank program.
• I just wanted to reflect on the cuts on the IPS program, the emergency program.
• I just wanted to reflect on the cuts on the IPS program, the emergency program.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 2312 and first adopted the DE1 amendment, after which the amended bill was discussed. Nonpartisan fiscal staff walked through the spreadsheet and explained the bill’s higher education budget changes, including increases for state grants and tribal college assistance, unchanged funding for several existing programs, and reductions or eliminations for items such as state work study, summer academic enrichment, student loan counseling, concurrent enrollment, and the student parent support initiative. Staff also noted transfers to special revenue funds, the cancellation and reappropriation of ALS research funding, and a new licensing/registration revenue item. The committee was told the bill met the committee’s zero target overall, with a net general fund change of zero relative to the February forecast, while also adding some non-general fund expenditures for program licensing and registration. Members asked several questions about the transfers and specific line items, including whether any new special revenue accounts were being created, the foster care wraparound services line, and the treatment of the University of Minnesota and Centric Care partnership. Staff explained that the transfers generally did not create new accounts, that some items were not in the base, and that the U of M/Centric Care partnership was a one-time appropriation in the prior bill but was now being built into the base at a different amount. The University of Minnesota section also included new or continued funding for medical school development, health training restoration, emergency assistance grants, ALS research, and a weather resiliency program, while the Mayo Foundation section eliminated funding for Mayo Medical School and the Mayo family medicine residency program. The policy portion of the DE1 was then introduced. It included a maximum tuition and fee amount for state grants, direct appropriation of emergency assistance grants to Minnesota State, a juvenile justice appropriation for Metropolitan State University, and the ALS research reappropriation to the University of Minnesota. It also contained repealers for unfunded programs, including a delayed repealer for the student parent support initiative. In the higher education policy article, the bill would allow Minnesota State to offer applied doctoral degrees in cybersecurity, make technical changes to hunger-free campus and sexual misconduct procedures, extend pregnant and parenting student protections to private institutions, allow OHE to retain up to 10% of certain competitive grants for administration, consolidate reports, change the state grant formula so negative FAFSA contributions count as zero, and reduce the state grant lifetime credit cap from 180 to 120 credits. The Northstar Promise provisions would limit tuition and fees to resident rates and require MnState, and request the University of Minnesota, to ensure eligible students receive the benefit.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the breakfast program, the food program, the milk program, there's all separate programs that have
• program, and this program then provides more than those programs.
• program, and this program then provides more than those programs.
• program or plan education program program or plan program<00:54:04.160> program<00:54:04.839>
• program um IND education program program program um IND education program and<00:54:07.079> then<

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Department of Education’s Bureau of Wellness and Nutrition presented an overview of the school meal and child nutrition programs it administers, including the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, and Special Milk Program. Staff explained which programs are federally funded through USDA, which have state matching funds, and how reimbursement rates are set for different programs and fiscal years. They also walked the committee through a packet showing reimbursement tables, state and federal funding totals, and eligibility data. Members focused much of their questioning on how state and federal reimbursements work for lunch and breakfast, why lunch is shown as a state match while breakfast has meal-based breakdowns, and how the department allocates funds in the budget. The department explained that lunch uses a set state match tied to federal requirements, while breakfast reimbursement is based on meals served. They also reviewed FY 22-24 funding trends, noting higher federal spending during COVID-era waivers and lower amounts as those waivers ended. A committee member asked for the data in Excel and the department agreed to provide it. The discussion also covered summer meal programs and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-run benefit program that provides funds to families; the two programs coordinate through data sharing but are not the same. Members also discussed CEP, with staff explaining that New Hampshire currently has three schools participating, that the qualifying threshold was reduced from 40% to 25% identified students, and that districts must cover the non-federal share with non-federal funds. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• programming.
• the line programs.
• Or you can choose to do the one-year program and go through any of the HED programs.
• So the Ed Fellows program is not a tuition reimbursement program.
• This makes it sound like a college program or residency program.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Without these programs, Americans would not have We have seen that many of these programs have novel
• The SBIR program is one of the most successful technology programs in the federal government as indicated
• What I can tell you is the SBIR program should not be a welfare program to award 50 plus contracts to
• The SBIR program is an investment program, an investment in ideas to facilitate solutions that take what
• In doing so, you will prevent the SBIR program from becoming a welfare program and keep it focused on

Keywords: SBIR, STTR, Innovate Act, small business, innovation, legislative reforms, economic growth, funding, technology transfer

Summary: The meeting focused on the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs (SBIR-STTR), emphasizing the critical reforms necessary to enhance their effectiveness. Chair Ernst introduced the Innovate Act to streamline processes, ensuring funding is awarded based on merit and addressing existing abuses within the system. The discussion was robust, with numerous members expressing concerns about phase transitions and the need for targeted funding to support impactful technological innovations. The conversation also highlighted the program's importance in fostering economic growth, particularly for small businesses in rural areas, and the urgency for legislative changes as the program's authorization approaches expiration.

Transcript Highlights:

• integrity and enhancing program integrity in the programs.
• integrity and enhancing program integrity in the programs.
• integrity and enhancing program integrity in the programs.
• integrity and enhancing program integrity in the programs.
• leaving programs. Correct. leaving programs. Correct.

Bills: HF3378

Keywords: human services, Optum reports, data privacy, transparency, legislative oversight, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We increase expanded learning opportunities program. These are the after-school programs.
• The program has supported more than 300 students already who have completed their PhD program.
• Is it the creation of new programs? Is it the growth of existing programs?
• Members, this is a program. $125 million proposed for that program.
• Excuse me, for what program? Low Income Weatherization Program. Thank you. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee heard opening remarks on the 2025 Budget Act, which will be amended into AB 101 and SB 101 for floor consideration. Committee leaders described the budget as a difficult compromise shaped by a $12 billion deficit, federal funding uncertainty, wildfire impacts, and rising out-year costs, while emphasizing a balance between compassion and fiscal responsibility. Each budget subcommittee chair then summarized major actions in their areas, including health care, human services, education, climate and transportation, housing and state administration, public safety, and oversight/transparency. Key policy items included delaying or narrowing some of the Governor’s proposed cuts, especially in Medi-Cal and other safety-net programs; preserving funding for dental care, women’s health, family planning, hospice, long-term care, IHSS, and services for undocumented Californians; and maintaining or expanding child care, foster care, food banks, and CalWORKs-related supports. Education actions included additional Proposition 98 settle-up, reduced deferrals, support for TK-12, teacher recruitment, literacy, mental health, preschool slots, and restored funding for UC and CSU. Other major items included housing and homelessness investments, wildfire and disaster response funding, transit loans and greenhouse gas reduction fund support, Proposition 36 and VOCA-related public safety funding, and oversight measures on federal impacts and state efficiency. Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst staff said the package makes some of the same savings moves as the May Revision but relies more on internal borrowing and fewer reductions, leaving a smaller reserve than the administration’s plan but still maintaining roughly $11 billion in the rainy day fund. Members from both parties largely supported the package while raising concerns about long-term sustainability, Medi-Cal costs, reserve use, and the need for future revenue and program review. The committee adopted the subcommittee actions by roll call, 18-6, with the roll held open for absent members and additional comments continuing after the vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Working Waterfront Program, and over $100 million for the DEP land acquisition program. $638.6 million
• automated audit program.
• statewide program.
• the IDD program.
• For these individuals on the ADAP program because it will bring revenue back to the program, keep it

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But there's more to this program But there's more to this program than<00:08:01.040> that.
• that leads to the program.
• partner into the program itself. partner into the program itself.
• that leads to the preparatory program that leads to the program. program. program.
• hand and say you hate the program? hand and say you hate the program?

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Votruba Young Scholars Academy 00:01:55 Taxation of Financial Deposit Institutions 00:36:50, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and programs that will be coming in the future. ...infrastructure to administer these programs and programs
• Farmworker Program, as well as the Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Program, all in total
• the permanent local housing allocation program which is run as a competitive program for six million
• Sorry, there's been no changes to that program. And how much is that program funded for?
• There's been no changes to that program, and how much is that program funded for?

Summary: The subcommittee first heard an informational presentation on the May Revision’s proposed reorganization of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into separate housing-focused and consumer/business-focused entities. Administration officials said the split would improve oversight, streamline decision-making, and create a dedicated California Housing and Homelessness Agency with a new housing development and finance committee. The Department of Finance said funding was needed in 2025-26 to begin implementation, while the LAO recommended rejecting the proposal without prejudice because the Little Hoover Commission review was still pending and the plan would require ongoing General Fund costs. Members raised concerns about the timing, the lack of alignment with the budget process, and whether the reorganization would improve accountability for homelessness spending; several public witnesses supported the concept but stressed it could not substitute for new housing and homelessness dollars. The committee then took up the Department of Veterans Affairs. CalVet requested funding for phase three of its electronic health care record project and a trailer bill to preserve authority for federal background checks, but the May Revision withdrew requests for deferred maintenance and additional administrative support. The LAO noted deferred maintenance can prevent larger future costs, and the chair criticized the withdrawal of less than $1 million for veterans’ homes as short-sighted given existing repair needs. No vote was taken. Next, the Department of Housing and Community Development presented its budget. HCD said the May Revision provides no new affordable housing or homelessness funding, but does retain existing rounds of funding and proposes a $31.7 million reversion from undersubscribed housing programs. Members from both parties expressed concern about zeroing out ongoing housing and homelessness investments, especially for LIHTC, the Multifamily Housing Program, and HAP. HCD also defended its homelessness accountability and compliance work, saying the unit includes about 30 program staff and six attorneys, with three additional attorneys requested mainly to handle public records and litigation workload. Public commenters largely opposed the lack of new funding and urged continued support for housing and homelessness programs, while some supported the reorganization and accountability efforts. Finally, the committee heard Go-Biz proposals. The administration requested authority to increase funding for a federal trade program match if needed, plus reappropriations for administrative funds tied to the Containerized Ports Interoperability Grant Program, zero-emission vehicle operations, and the Women’s Business Center Enhancement Program. It also proposed withdrawing the Cal Competes grant request and reverting remaining funds from the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund. The LAO said Cal Competes is generally effective but could be cut as a budget solution, while warning that the performing arts fund was close to awards and should be considered carefully. Members objected to pulling back committed funds for performing arts organizations and questioned why the state would withdraw support after applications had already been submitted.

Transcript Highlights:

• newer HUD programs. newer HUD programs.
• regards to one particular HUD program. regards to one particular HUD program.
• Competition for housing programs is great, and every program is oversubscribed.
• and every program is programs is great and every program is overs<00:29:27.960> subscribed.
• Thanks. bonds and challenge program. Habitat bonds and challenge program.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• THEN WE HAVE ARE IN PROGRAMS. THE RN PROGRAMS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OFFER MULTIPLE DEGREE TYPES.
• THE NUMBER OF NURSING EDUCATION PROGRAMS HEAR THE TOTAL PROGRAMS IDENTIFIED BY THE GREENLINE ON THIS
• OUR PROFESSIONAL NURSING EDUCATION PROGRAMS, OUR RN PROGRAMS ARE EXPECTED TO BE ACCREDITED WITHIN FIVE
• THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR IS A PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE PER SE FOR THE PROGRAM.
• THERE ARE SOME PROGRAMS THAT GET A BAD LOOK BECAUSE OF SOME BAD PROGRAMS.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, annually funded programs.
• It is that flagship program.
• Um, that's that program. We are a AAA. Uh, bonded program.
• That includes 32 programs for um the COVID-related programs.
• Uh, venture capital program.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's Program Review, Department of Corrections Performance Measurement in Correctional Programming with
• Very powerful program.
• months, we know those programs.
• commitment programs.
• commitment programs.

Summary: The committee met to hear an overview of the Appropriations Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice budget area and then received performance-measure presentations from the Department of Corrections, the Commission on Offender Review, and the Department of Juvenile Justice. Staff reviewed the roughly $7.4 billion criminal justice and judiciary budget, noting major funding areas such as corrections, law enforcement, victim services, courts, and due process, along with recent investments in prison health care, security equipment, fentanyl enforcement, court staffing, and juvenile justice salaries and education programs. Secretary Dixon of the Department of Corrections described staffing and population pressures, including growth in inmate population, overtime-driven deficits, and the opening of additional housing units. He emphasized the department’s use of performance measures and highlighted reforms such as incentivized prisons, administrative management units, reentry planning, faith-based programs, and expanded education and vocational training. Members asked about teacher hiring, public defender pay parity, fentanyl funding, staffing capacity, and the role of the National Guard; Dixon said teacher vacancies had improved, public defenders had received comparable pay increases, fentanyl funding would be addressed further by FDLE, and the Guard had helped stabilize staffing. The Commission on Offender Review reported on parole, conditional release, addiction recovery supervision, and revocations, saying its recidivism/success rates had improved over a three-year measurement period. Senator Rouson pressed the commission on clemency and pardons, saying that work was omitted from the presentation and asking for backlog and case data; the commission said it did not have those figures on hand and would follow up. The committee also discussed a conditional medical release pilot study, and members questioned the report’s conclusion that no suitable elderly inmate population could be identified, asking what criteria were used and whether stakeholders were consulted. Secretary Hall of the Department of Juvenile Justice outlined the agency’s prevention-to-residential continuum and its emphasis on education, data-driven decision-making, and evidence-based programming. He said salary increases had reduced vacancies, juvenile arrests and residential commitments had fallen sharply over time, and tools such as civil citations, risk assessments, and quality-improvement reviews were being used to guide placements and services. Hall also described the department’s use of dashboards, monthly data check-ins, and the dispositional matrix to improve outcomes and reduce recidivism.

Transcript Highlights:

• and strengthen the program.
• The program works in this way. We, CARB, through regulation,... The program works in this way.
• So the ability of this program to help facilitate those other program goals is important.
• So this program is essential.
• So it’s a powerful program.

Summary: The hearing was a select committee discussion on the transportation costs and impacts of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with opening remarks from the co-chairs and members emphasizing affordability, climate goals, and the need to explain the program’s benefits to the public. The first panel from CARB and the California Energy Commission described how LCFS works as a market-based, declining carbon-intensity program that rewards lower-carbon fuels, supports zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and is intended to reduce greenhouse gases and local air pollution. They argued the program has driven billions in private investment, increased alternative fuel use, and that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of retail gasoline prices, which they said are dominated by crude oil, refining, and distribution costs. Members questioned the panel on the gap between the regulatory target and actual carbon-intensity performance, the role of credit banking, which fuels are generating the most credits, how the 2025 amendments affected the program, and whether LCFS credits are truly additional. CARB explained that banking helps cost-effectiveness and investment certainty, that ethanol, renewable diesel, and biodiesel currently provide the largest volumes while electricity is expected to grow, and that the updated targets were informed by the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goals and the 2030 scoping plan. The Energy Commission said its data show environmental programs add some cost to gasoline but do not drive price volatility, which is mainly tied to crude oil and refinery margins. The second panel, featuring academic and research experts, focused on program design, out-of-state credit generation, and broader economic effects. Speakers said LCFS is successful because it ties incentives to emissions benefit, uses life-cycle analysis, and allows flexible compliance that lowers costs compared with more direct regulation. They also said the program’s benefits generally outweigh costs, that it can reduce air pollution disparities and support equity, but that some issues—especially indirect land use change, additionality, and older program assumptions—need more research and may warrant future rulemaking. One researcher noted that while LCFS likely raises gasoline prices somewhat, the effect is uncertain by design and usually smaller than normal market fluctuations, and another warned that limiting credit generation too narrowly could create legal and efficiency problems.

Transcript Highlights:

• How will HCD Connect interact with programs at HDFC?
• programs.
• That includes government-to-government grants, federal programs, tribal housing programs, and the like
• There is a direct supervision program, which is called our new covered persons program.
• So that is one of the programs that we're very proud to be able to administer. ...is one of the programs

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on State Administration heard a series of budget change proposals and trailer bill items, beginning with Housing and Community Development (HCD) requests. HCD sought permanent authority for seven existing temporary positions to support the HCD Connect IT system, and a separate proposal to fund implementation of eight 2025 housing-related laws with $4.2 million General Fund and 16 positions, plus $470,000 one-time General Fund. Members asked about how HCD Connect would interact with programs moving to the new Housing Development Finance Committee, and HCD also explained that the estimated cost to implement AB 1053 had been revised downward from about $6 million to $1.9 million because of shared implementation with CalHFA and the new committee structure. The committee also heard a Cal ICH proposal for $339,000 one-time General Fund to implement AB 678 on LGBTQ+ inclusive and culturally competent homelessness services, with testimony emphasizing data gaps and the need for a contract-based approach because HMIS cannot be changed unilaterally. The Department of Financial Protection and Innovation presented three continuation proposals: $15.34 million and 53 positions for the California Consumer Financial Protection Law program, $13.5 million and 51 positions for the Debt Collector Licensing Act program, and $49,000 ongoing for two positions in the broker-dealer/investment adviser education program. Members and the public raised concerns about the size and fairness of debt collector assessments and licensing fees, while DFPI explained the pro rata fee structure, the current license count, and how larger assessments fall on larger firms. Public testimony also supported retaining funding for the Student Loan Empowerment Network and requested funding for a franchise broker registration program. The committee also considered a mandate item involving suspension of a disclosure requirement related to property taxation, and trailer bill language from the Government Operations Agency to amend AB 91 on MENA demographic data collection, with the administration emphasizing data nondisclosure, protection of federal funding, and delayed implementation. The Secretary of State’s office then presented Help America Vote Act funding requests: $10.3 million for VoteCal maintenance and operations and $4.492 million for HAVA spending plans supporting voter education, training, accessibility, auditing, and county assistance. The office also requested $660,000 General Fund to implement AB 1392, which would make voter registration information for elected officials and candidates confidential, and explained the need to modify VoteCal and county election systems. The committee also heard requests to continue the Cal-Access Replacement System with $11.8 million General Fund and to continue the Notary Automation Program Replacement Project with $9.75 million from the Business Fees Fund. Members asked about total project costs, testing, data migration, and the expected November 2026 go-live date for Cal-Access replacement. Votes were taken on the vote-only items once quorum was established, and the committee approved the items considered. The final informational item was an overview from the California Arts Council, which highlighted the agency’s 50th anniversary, its statewide grantmaking, and the economic impact of arts funding. Council staff described Creative Corps, cultural districts, and the role of arts funding in local economies, while members and public witnesses urged increased support, including a request to raise local assistance grant funding to $50 million and to provide additional funding for cultural districts. Testimony emphasized the arts as economic infrastructure, community infrastructure, and a source of civic and cultural vitality across California.

Transcript Highlights:

• completers and program Enrollments.
• We've been able to increase our program count by 272 programs.
• Just to remind the committee, what we do in K-12 programs is we offer program support.
• There's no FA program there.
• Most would elect that we don't keep this program. We move to a different type of program.

Keywords: 914, all