Transcript Highlights:

• , also the expenditure of our greenhouse gas funds, and that is we need to find ways in California to
• There's funding in here for flood protection, something that we very much care about and need to look
• To assess need or identify projects that should be funded.
• well needed because through this needs assessment, we've really identified that we have a funding gap
• Given the number of pressing projects and needs we've heard about today, is the state's general fund

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on water and coastal resilience heard an overview of the governor’s Proposition 4 spending plan, with presentations from the Department of Finance, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and later coastal agencies. Members discussed the water chapter’s major allocations for drinking water and wastewater, recycled water, tribal water infrastructure, groundwater recharge and SGMA implementation, dam safety, flood protection, integrated regional water management, Salton Sea projects, and water data/stream gauges. The LAO noted that many programs are established and have clear funding processes, but some newer or less-defined programs may warrant more detailed future budget requests and reporting. No votes were taken on the agenda items. Members raised concerns about groundwater subsidence, water deliveries from the Delta, the pace of water storage investments, instream flows, and whether bond dollars were being used to backfill General Fund reductions. Administration witnesses said groundwater recharge spending is being paced because prior years already funded substantial SGMA work, that Delta operations are governed by water quality, salinity, and species requirements, and that Proposition 1 storage projects have moved slowly because they are locally led and require permitting and financing. The Water Board and DWR said they use public needs assessments, annual plans, and existing grant processes to prioritize projects, and Finance said some General Fund programs were shifted to Proposition 4 to help balance the budget. Members also asked for clearer public tracking of bond spending and more concise future reporting. In the coastal resilience portion, the Ocean Protection Council and Coastal Conservancy described Proposition 4 funding for sea level rise adaptation, coastal flood management, habitat restoration, public access, and San Francisco Bay projects, with a multi-year rollout based on project readiness and recent large state investments. The Conservancy said it would use its existing rolling grant process, while OPC said its sea level rise grants would build on existing programs and new technical assistance. The Department of Fish and Wildlife explained its proposed use of bond funds for climate-ready fisheries, hatchery modernization, salmon monitoring, whale- and turtle-safe fishing gear, and a specific hatchery operations request tied to the Friant settlement. The LAO said the coastal chapter’s proposed first-year spending is relatively modest but generally reasonable given staffing and project readiness, while members emphasized oversight, transparency, and coordination across agencies and jurisdictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• He said many communities, including Lawrence, need additional funding and asked what the better process
• We want to see it through, but we also need to be balancing our ability to take on and fund new projects
• Demand for MVP grants far outweighs existing funding, and that need will increase as climate change becomes
• So it's in there, but we think that it needs to be its own dedicated line item in order to really fund
• But this bill as written will not provide the funding that we need for these critical projects that have

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets

Summary: The Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets held a hearing on S. 2542, the Mass Ready Act, the Healey-Driscoll administration’s environmental bond bill. Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Rebecca Tepper and Undersecretary Jen Sullivan described the bill as a $3 billion resilience package to protect drinking water, farms, fisheries, roads, bridges, parks, and communities from flooding, heat, drought, wildfires, and other climate impacts. They highlighted major authorizations for flood and coastal resilience, DCR infrastructure, drinking water and wastewater upgrades, PFAS remediation, open space and land protection, food security infrastructure, and a new Resilience Revolving Fund for low-cost loans to municipalities, tribes, and water districts. Committee members asked about project lifespans, flood and salt marsh permitting, wastewater and combined sewer overflow funding, parkway maintenance, land acquisition priorities, Quabbin stewardship, and how the revolving fund would be capitalized and administered. The administration said the fund would be modeled on the Clean Water Trust, use existing trust resources rather than new fees, and could later support special obligation bonds; they also said the bill would streamline certain permitting and improve flood-risk disclosure and climate-related building standards. Many witnesses urged the committee to strengthen the bill’s funding levels or add related policy provisions. Labor, contractor, and plumbing groups supported creating a water reuse and graywater recycling commission, saying it could conserve water, reduce stormwater and sewer burdens, and create skilled jobs. Boston Harbor Now asked for higher authorizations for the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness program and resilient coast work, plus permitting reforms for nature-based and waterfront projects. The Massachusetts Rivers Alliance backed the bill but also urged inclusion of drought-management legislation, a water reuse commission, a statewide flood buyout program, and more support for community resiliency. Environmental justice advocates from Green Roots called for dedicated funding for outdoor and indoor air quality monitoring and indoor air quality improvements in schools and public housing, while conservation and tree advocates sought larger investments in urban forestry, local nurseries, and workforce training, along with clearer language to ensure municipal reforestation funds go to cities and towns. Agricultural and food system witnesses emphasized the importance of the bill’s food security and farmland provisions. The Southeastern Massachusetts Agricultural Partnership and the Mass Food System Collaborative supported the $125 million food security infrastructure grant program, saying it has funded critical facilities and equipment for farmers, fishers, processors, and food access organizations, but warned that without the bill there could be a funding gap in fiscal year 2027. They also supported farmland protection and asked for more funding for agricultural capital programs, used-equipment eligibility in grant programs, and a next-generation farmer fund. Water utility representatives said the bill still falls short of the state’s long-term drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater needs, citing EPA estimates of nearly $37 billion in needed investments over 20 years and urging dedicated recurring funding and broader eligibility for climate resilience grants. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Kuchel mentioned again, we do need for those funds to be stable.
• But do we need to risk penalizing the individuals in a community who desperately need those funds if
• But we need your continued support to fund the needed services and really the permanent housing that
• But we need your continued support to fund the needed services and really the permanent housing that
• All of these things need ongoing funding.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HAP) program, focusing on how state homelessness dollars are spent, what accountability measures are in place, and whether those measures are helping or hindering results. The chair framed the discussion around the state’s large homelessness population, the roughly $5 billion invested in HAP since 2018, and the need to balance transparency, performance, and administrative burden as the Legislature considers future funding and possible trailer bill changes for Round 7. Testimony from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Housing and Community Development described HAP’s evolving accountability structure, including regional planning, system performance measures, housing element and pro-housing requirements, encampment policies, and public dashboards. LAO noted that added requirements have lengthened the application and award timeline, while HCD emphasized that the program is increasingly directing funds toward evidence-based housing solutions and that public reporting has improved transparency. HCD also said HAP has helped move more than 90,000 people into permanent housing statewide and that the department is working to reduce duplicative reporting and improve speed. Local officials from Oakland, Alameda County, and Riverside County largely supported HAP but urged the Legislature not to overcorrect with punitive or overly burdensome accountability rules. They argued that homelessness is driven by broader housing shortages and outside factors, that one-time funding should be stable and predictable, and that metrics should focus on program-level outcomes rather than system-wide homelessness counts alone. Several witnesses described HAP as essential to keeping shelter, interim housing, and permanent housing programs operating, with Riverside citing a 19% reduction in unsheltered homelessness and Alameda citing over 6,000 people moved into permanent housing through HAP-funded programs. Members asked about point-in-time count reporting, fraud safeguards, federal funding threats, and whether accountability requirements should be streamlined. Some members emphasized the need for faster disbursement and stable metrics, while others raised concerns about data consistency across counties and the impact of federal cuts to vouchers and supportive housing. No formal vote was taken; the hearing was informational, with members indicating follow-up discussions and future budget negotiations on HAP accountability and funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• Other funds means any funds other than foundation funding.
• Over half of superintendents reported being extensively in need of additional funding for special education
• Being extensively in need of additional funding.
• funding, yes, that percentage... ...the breakdown of the other funding versus the foundation funding
• It's just interesting that they wouldn't recognize it as needing funding when, in fact, they're getting

Summary: The House/Joint Education committee continued its adequacy study with a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, focusing first on matrix spending and then non-matrix spending. Staff explained the methodology for mapping APSCN expenditure data to matrix lines, reviewed district and school categories used in the analysis, and highlighted key findings: foundation funding covered a large share of matrix costs but total spending on matrix items exceeded foundation funding, with classroom teachers making up the largest share. Members asked for additional breakdowns on waivers, superintendent survey responses, trend data, and spending by district type, size, and rural/urban status. Staff also noted limitations in tracking two matrix lines—salary enhancement for other employees and all personnel health insurance—because of coding and definition issues. The committee then reviewed non-matrix expenditures, including instructional aides, facilities, school safety, mental health, dyslexia services, gifted and talented, and career and technical education. Staff reported that non-matrix spending remained above $2 billion over the last three years, with most of it coming from other funds rather than foundation funding. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, mental health needs, school safety, food service, athletic transportation, and whether some items should be added to the matrix. The Department of Education clarified that the building fund reflects district-held funds for construction and maintenance projects, while the facilities partnership program is a separate state process for approved projects. In the final discussion, staff summarized total spending as more than $15,800 per student in 2025, with about 69% going to matrix resources and 31% to non-matrix resources. The chair explained the adequacy process and the committee’s role in setting future funding recommendations, and members discussed the recommendations worksheet included in the binder. The chair then proposed postponing the remainder of Part Two of the presentation until a May meeting after the fiscal session, along with inviting the Department of Education back for more detailed questions; with no objections, the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The second infrastructure fund is much needed.
• They identify a need, and there's just not enough funding to meet those needs.
• So, you know, it's an ongoing problem and it needs ongoing infrastructure funding.
• So the fund is versatile. It's relatively small, but the $2.5 million does not meet the need.
• We need your support with the general fund.

Committee: House House Rural Development, Land Grants And Cultural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• These programs are funded through member contributions and do not result in the need for contributions
• So, we've been on that trajectory, and we don't anticipate needing additional funds.
• No, 10% is what we would need. 18% is what we would need if we didn't get funding.
• have the resources they need. funds available to increase compensation for other valued professionals
• , both that we... need to have a program of programmatic funding, but we also have to have a balance

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• And we need to do a better job in funding that, Mr. Chair. That's just my 2 cents.
• priorities or address significant local needs at higher levels of funding than the current system is
• Only fund projects needing additional funds for completion if they did not receive the CDPF, and also
• not need more than 4 years to expend the funds.
• we need to have funded, and many times I was caught up in that so that I funded projects that they didn't

Transcript Highlights:

• Rather big increases that you've frankly funded during the special session, and we'll need to make a
• We got non-recurring money that needs to be pocketed to offset the general fund recurring costs.
• If you need it. But this shows the share of general fund revenue by revenue type.
• Chair, I just feel the need to talk a little bit about the permanent fund.
• Funds, other asset funds, or the underlying portfolio companies that they need to use any particular

Transcript Highlights:

• So even that would reflect part of our need for funding.
• So even that would reflect part of our need for funding.
• But at the same time, we need to be fully funding. So it was mentioned...
• But at the same time, we need to be fully funding.
• Funding is needed to address the needs of tribal communities and support long-term programming, including

Transcript Highlights:

• fund staff and other needs at a school district.
• students of greatest need, to better target those funds.
• We do Also need, at moments in time, sort of grant funds that get people to start to do new things.
• We agree with previous comments that have been made regarding the need to stabilize the Tier 2 funding
• We agree with previous comments that have been made regarding the need to stabilize the Tier 2 funding

Summary: The committee heard presentations on the Governor’s education budget proposals for the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), Learning Recovery Block Grant, and Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), followed by testimony from State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond. On LCFF, Finance outlined the proposed 2.43% COLA, repayment of prior deferrals, and a trailer bill penalty for LEAs that fail to adopt Local Control Accountability Plans on time. The LAO said its COLA estimate was slightly lower and raised concerns that the Governor’s proposed TK staffing ratio increase may be more costly than estimated. Members also discussed whether the current COLA formula should better reflect California-specific or district staffing costs, and whether TK should be more clearly separated from the K-3 grade span adjustment to avoid larger K-3 class sizes. The chair asked staff to work with the LAO on both the TK/K-3 issue and alternative COLA calculations. For the Learning Recovery Block Grant, Finance proposed restoring the first of three delayed payments, $378.6 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund, while the LAO recommended adopting the proposal but extending the expenditure deadline by at least a year. The LAO reported that districts had spent $1.6 billion of the $6.8 billion received through 2023-24 and said most districts were only now shifting from federal COVID relief to block grant spending. Members questioned whether the large state and federal investments were improving outcomes, citing declining reading and math trends, while Finance and the State Board president pointed to some signs of improvement, especially in math, attendance, and gains for some student groups. Darling-Hammond emphasized that student needs have grown, that recovery spending has gone to devices, ventilation, staffing, tutoring, summer school, and community schools, and that targeted interventions appear to be helping some districts recover faster than others. On ELOP, Finance proposed adding $435 million to expand universal access by lowering the Tier 1 threshold from 75% to 55% unduplicated pupils, bringing ongoing funding to $4.4 billion. The LAO said the estimate was reasonable but recommended delaying implementation for a year, aligning ELOP with ASES to reduce overlap, moving toward funding based on participation rather than enrollment, and considering a fixed Tier 2 rate. Members and witnesses discussed staffing challenges, the use of funds for students with disabilities, and uncertainty in Tier 2 funding caused by unspent dollars and opt-outs. Darling-Hammond supported ELOP as part of California’s broader after-school and summer learning strategy, said most districts are now offering full-day TK and expanded learning, and urged the state to reduce fragmentation across categorical programs and build more unified systems for funding, reporting, and support.

Transcript Highlights:

• students of greatest need to better target those funds.
• We also need, at moments in time, sort of grant funds.
• We need grant funds that get people to start doing new things.
• Yeah, and you know, we need even more consistent funding because pink slip threats on March 15th are
• We agree with previous comments regarding the need to stabilize the tier two funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• At our current funding levels, UC cannot fulfill all the construction needs at the pace necessary to
• And while campuses fund some repairs each year, the state General Fund allocation can't meet the needs
• A consistent multi-year funding plan is essential to addressing CSU's capital needs effectively.
• or things like that, so we can actually map out when we need the funding.
• of roof repairs or elevators or things like that so we can actually map out when we need the funding

Summary: The committee’s first major discussion focused on higher education facilities across UC, CSU, and the community colleges, with Chair Alvarez framing the issue as a final budget hearing before the May Revise. The LAO presented findings that campuses have grown substantially in buildings and square footage, while classroom and lab utilization remains below legislative standards and deferred maintenance backlogs continue to rise. The LAO also emphasized that the state and segments lack comprehensive data on capital renewal spending and recommended better reporting, clearer funding targets, and long-term planning for renewal and maintenance. UC, CSU, and community college representatives each described large five-year capital plans, aging facilities, seismic and deferred maintenance needs, and the role of student housing, while noting that construction costs are rising faster than inflation. Members questioned the segments about debt service, utilization rates, and how projects are prioritized. UC said its debt service tied to state support is about $665 million annually and described a $30 billion five-year capital financial plan, including housing, medical centers, and building renewal. CSU said it has about $31 billion in five-year needs and more than $8 billion in deferred maintenance, with funding coming from a mix of state-related and one-time sources since the state shifted capital responsibility to CSU. Community colleges said their unmet facilities needs total about $33.5 billion and explained their use of a scoring matrix and FUSION system to rank projects. The chair and members pressed all three systems to better distinguish between projects that are truly shovel-ready and those that are long-term needs, and discussed whether facilities condition data, total cost of ownership, and more standardized metrics should guide future bond proposals. The committee then turned to Proposition 2 and the Governor’s proposed community college capital outlay projects. The Department of Finance said Prop. 2 provides $1.5 billion for community colleges and that the Governor’s budget proposes 29 projects, with two continuing Prop. 51 projects also included. The LAO supported the overall use of the funds but raised concerns about the current 65/35 split between modernization and growth, the unusually large share of gymnasium projects, and some scoring metrics that favor larger campuses and certain regions. Community college officials said the scoring system was developed through participatory governance and would take one to two years to revise, but they supported the funding and agreed to follow up on questions about project categories and the rationale for the weighting. Members also suggested giving more weight to modernization, regional access, and intersegmental or collaborative projects. A final item addressed the CalKids program. The Department of Finance proposed $56,000 ongoing General Fund for three positions, while the LAO recommended approving two positions but rejecting a manager position until the current $7.5 million marketing campaign is evaluated. ScholarShare’s executive director said CalKids has enrolled more than 5 million children, with nearly 600,000 claims and over $45 million distributed, and argued that additional staff and outreach are needed to reach a goal of 1 million claimed scholarships by the end of 2025 and to implement AB 2808. Members asked about marketing effectiveness, data sharing, and eligibility rules, and the program said it is expanding partnerships with Cradle to Career and CSAC. No final vote was taken in the hearing, and the chair indicated the facilities item would be held open.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's also a need for ongoing funding at the systems level for professional development.
• We need funding to be based on enrollment.
• We need to fund care that's full-time, year-round, and meets the needs of real people, not just a school
• In thinking about system needs, while California has invested millions of state and federal funds into
• In thinking about system needs, while California has invested millions of state and federal funds into

Summary: The hearing focused on California’s early learning and care system, including the Master Plan for Early Learning and Care, universal preschool access, and the state’s transitional kindergarten (TK) expansion. Administration officials said California has made progress toward universal TK for all four-year-olds and expanded access for low-income three-year-olds, children with disabilities, and some two-year-olds in state preschool. The Department of Social Services highlighted ongoing work on quality improvement and a single rate structure, while the Department of Education emphasized continued investments in UPK infrastructure, inclusion, and teacher development. Testimony from advocacy groups stressed that access remains uneven, especially for infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds, and that federal threats to Head Start could significantly disrupt services in California. Witnesses and committee members discussed several policy recommendations for preschool and state preschool programs, including consolidating part-day and full-day contracts, simplifying eligibility priorities, eliminating some family and licensing fees, allowing self-attestation of income, making the two-year-old preschool option permanent, and basing funding on enrollment and the true cost of care. A parent from Contra Costa described losing child care after moving counties for safety reasons, illustrating delays and fragmentation in the system. Providers in public comment argued that reimbursement rates are too low and that better pay and retirement and health benefits are needed to stabilize the workforce. The second panel addressed the governor’s January budget proposal to fully implement universal TK and reduce TK class ratios from 12:1 to 10:1. The Department of Finance said the budget would add about $2.4 billion to serve all eligible four-year-olds and $1.5 billion for the lower ratio. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said its enrollment and cost estimates were lower than the administration’s and projected the ratio change would cost less than proposed. The Department of Education and the Learning Policy Institute reported that TK enrollment and staffing have grown, most districts now offer TK, and many are on track to meet new teacher requirements, but facilities, staffing, and expanded learning remain challenges. Committee members raised concerns about access at all school sites, the need for more full-day options, and the risk that TK expansion could crowd out CSPP and Head Start space.

Transcript Highlights:

• “We would need additional funds to do what the bill is proposing.”
• This additional funding is needed due to the growth of eligible children in the program.
• It was a one-time donation that we fully expended the funds and no longer need the authority.
• And you need this funding.
• for somebody else who also needs access to the funding because X number of dollars, right?

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• We've seen needs that we haven't necessarily had direct funding for before, and it really unearthed what
• funded.
• funding.
• It might be a single city applying for these funds, but we need to look regionally at sea level rise
• Given the number of pressing projects and needs we've heard about today, is the state's general fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are we going to be adding more money into that, or is that a fully funded program that does not need
• What kind of programs exist under this funding? And if they wish to continue, they need to reapply.
• needs while keeping the fund solvent.
• We're here today to discuss the urgent need to fund the California Nurse Midwifery Education Fund as
• It's just that we need more funding. It's not enough funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so, again, our task will be to balance the need to fund key programs and services with the need for
• There's no funding that would go into a said fund.
• When we say new funding, has there ever been funding for Prop. 36?
• And so why... $8 million General Fund, and so why are we not proposing a budget based upon the needs,
• We'd just like to underscore the need to invest a billion dollars in new funding for the Homeless Housing

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee opened its hearing on the Governor’s 2026-27 budget with remarks emphasizing the start of a months-long process, the need for fiscal responsibility, and concerns about structural deficits, federal funding losses, housing and homelessness, and oversight. The vice chair echoed those concerns, warning against budgets built on short-term fixes and urging accountability. The Department of Finance presented a balanced budget year proposal of about $349 billion in total expenditures, including $248 billion General Fund, while acknowledging a structural imbalance in the out years and proposing a workload budget with limited new spending or cuts. Finance said the budget relies on stronger-than-expected revenues, but also on constitutional obligations such as Proposition 98 and Proposition 2, and on suspending a rainy-day fund true-up deposit to cover a projected $2.9 billion budget-year deficit. The administration highlighted higher education funding, climate and wildfire resilience investments, a new ZEV incentive, added Health and Human Services costs tied to H.R. 1, child care funding, and three tax proposals: third-party delivery tax compliance, a sustainable aviation fuel tax credit, and an extension of the California Competes tax credit. The LAO, by contrast, warned that the budget is “precariously balanced,” cited downside risk from stock market-driven revenues, and urged the Legislature to use reserves, avoid suspending rainy-day deposits, and begin shrinking multi-year deficits sooner rather than later. Member questions focused on wildfire mitigation and insurance, transit and GGRF funding, federal cuts affecting CalFresh and Medi-Cal, the proposed tax credits, homelessness accountability language, and education funding. Several members pressed for earlier partnership on deficit solutions and for more scrutiny of budget choices. The committee also discussed declining enrollment in K-12, community colleges, and CSU, with concerns about whether funding formulas are aligned with actual student demand. No formal votes or final actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• But if we already have leftover funding, if we have money for more new projects, why would we need a
• Ongoing funding is intended to support staff needed to plan to reduce reliance on the vendor and begin
• The terms of repayment are that if either the ADAP rebate fund is in need of increased funding, then
• DIS workforce is really needed. They do STIs, HIV, and mpox, so having more funding...
• There are 69 programs in 29 counties that need stable funding to continue to distribute naloxone and

Summary: The hearing began with an overview of the California Health and Human Services Agency, which described its 2026-27 budget, major departments, and strategic priorities, including behavioral health, housing and human services integration, children and youth, and aging/disability services. The agency also explained a technical CalHHS/CalHires budget adjustment tied to HR1 compliance and eligibility system work. No LAO concerns were raised on that item. The committee then heard from the Office of Youth and Community Restoration on its budget, its SB 823 realignment report, and related issues. OYCR said county-based realignment has generally succeeded but outcomes and readiness vary widely, and it recommended more climate surveys, youth advisory councils, stronger behavioral management, better programming, improved transition planning, and integrated longitudinal data systems. Members pressed OYCR on “net widening,” county-by-county trends, and the gap between the detailed recommendations discussed in hearing and the more general recommendations in the public report. OYCR also described problems with federal Title II grant timing and a pending $14 million administrative funding adjustment, and discussed implementation of the juvenile justice realignment block grant formula. The Ombudsperson division separately requested two new positions due to rising complaints, site visits, and records-access disputes with counties; LAO noted the proposal would create ongoing General Fund costs. Several other departments presented budget change proposals. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities requested $730,000 General Fund ongoing to cover an interagency administrative support gap with DSS; LAO had no concerns. EMSA presented its department overview, said its AB 716 ambulance-rate report has been delayed after resources were reduced, and requested funding for disaster-response vehicle replacement, IT security assessment work, and additional HR/legal staff; members questioned delays, compliance, and the ongoing General Fund impact. The Department of Community Services and Development sought reappropriation of LIWIP funds and explained a new Proposition 4 process for continuing the farmworker housing component. The Department of Rehabilitation requested authority for $60 million in additional federal funds and 54 positions to meet growing vocational rehabilitation demand, with no General Fund impact. The Department of Child Support Services presented its budget and a supplemental report on full pass-through of child support collections. Members questioned why local agency funding was being restored despite declining caseloads, and staff explained that staffing costs have risen faster than caseload declines and that additional funding is needed to maintain service levels. The supplemental report estimated full pass-through would cost about $150 million General Fund annually, or about $80 million for a state-and-county portion, with $3 million to $5 million in automation costs. Finally, the Department of Public Health gave a broad overview of its $5.1 billion budget and its State of Public Health report, highlighting improved mortality and life expectancy, declining overdose deaths and STI rates, persistent racial and regional disparities, and increasing public health emergency demands. CDPH also warned that federal funding threats and policy changes are creating major uncertainty for state and local public health systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• So in some instances, you have departments that keep positions vacant because they need funding to cover
• By leaving the funding in place, if we decide that those positions need to be used for permitting, then
• If you need to reclass a position to those activities, you still have the appropriate funding to pay
• A need to belt-tighten, one one-hundredth of one percent of the general fund, you know, these might be
• Okay, and I'm committed to ensuring that you continue to get the funds that you need to do this.

Summary: The subcommittee met to discuss budget issues related to vacant positions across several natural resources and environmental departments, with no votes taken and all items held open for a future hearing. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance explained the administration’s proposal to eliminate about 6,000 vacant positions statewide, including roughly 293 positions in the departments before the committee, as a way to capture salary savings and reduce flexible funding tied up in vacancies. The LAO recommended retaining special-funded positions, while noting that eliminating General Fund positions would reduce savings. Finance argued that vacancy levels have remained steady statewide, that departments need flexibility to manage operations and hard-to-fill jobs, and that some vacant positions can be reclassified to higher-priority work. Members raised concerns that many of the proposed eliminations would affect core public-safety, permitting, and environmental-protection functions. The Department of Fish and Wildlife said the cuts would affect permitting, environmental protection, and law enforcement, while State Parks said its proposed ranger reductions were chosen from historically vacant, hard-to-fill positions and would still leave many vacancies to fill through the academy. The Coastal Commission said its positions supported sea-level rise planning under SB 272. The Department of Pesticide Regulation and DTSC said the reductions would affect multiple program areas, though Finance said the special funds involved were not in structural deficit and the cuts could help avoid future fee increases. The State Water Resources Control Board said its proposed reductions were spread across programs, with public-health functions protected as much as possible. The committee then heard an overview from the State Water Resources Control Board on its responsibilities for water quality, water rights, drinking water, and funding for water infrastructure. Chair Joaquin Esquivel described ongoing work on the Bay-Delta Plan update, the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes voluntary agreements, and the need to actively administer water rights. Members also discussed the board’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, which narrowed federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The board requested $2.6 million and 12 permanent positions to address resulting permitting and enforcement gaps; the LAO said the request met its high bar for new proposals and was supported by the board’s data and reporting.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we will, if there's funding needed, come back and bring that.
• But we know we need to seed fund some of this, and excess sites funds is really drained down.
• But we know we need to seed fund some of this, and excess sites funds is really drained down.
• It took us multiple funding cycles to be able to get the much-needed money that we needed to rebuild
• And that's why we need funding for youth in HAP programs today to make sure we're addressing the needs