Transcript Highlights:

• So, these are communities that might need good services, might need good roads and bridges.
• They've been told that's what you need to do. They know there need to be.
• But all we need we Need to make sure that we know our elections are safe and secure.
• We need to do something.
• We need to do something.

Bills: SB65 , SB248 , SB330 , SB378 , SB844 , SB1330 , SB1410 , SB1475 , SB1476 , SB1565 , SB1618 , SB1623 , SJR39 , SJR47 , SB2084 , SB1655 , SB1679 , SB2174 , SB1775 , SB1873 , SB1204 , SB1884 , SB1916 , SB1937 , SB1447 , SB1500 , SB2007 , SB2074 , SB1944 , SB2018 , SB1984 , SB2026 , SB2045 , SB2049 , SB2062 , SB2112 , SB2118 , SB2127 , SB2134 , SB2135 , SB2139 , SB2154 , SB1195

Keywords: SB65, naloxone, Narcan, opioid overdose, overdose reversal, opioid antagonist, emergency opioid antagonist, substance abuse services, harm reduction, public health, overdose prevention, good samaritan, civil immunity, criminal immunity, controlled substances, addiction treatment, fentanyl, opioid crisis, school overdose response, first aid

Transcript Highlights:

• What's different about this fund from the other Funds they've had for capital maintenance.
• more money, you need more money, you need more money.
• We need to do something with them or we need to get rid of them.
• I think it's very important and a creative way to help address our funding needs Senator Logan, you're
• It does need to be valued.

Bills: SB65 , SB248 , SB330 , SB378 , SB844 , SB1330 , SB1410 , SB1475 , SB1476 , SB1565 , SB1618 , SB1623 , SJR39 , SJR47 , SB2084 , SB1655 , SB1679 , SB2174 , SB1775 , SB1873 , SB1204 , SB1884 , SB1916 , SB1937 , SB1447 , SB1500 , SB2007 , SB2074 , SB1944 , SB2018 , SB1984 , SB2026 , SB2045 , SB2049 , SB2062 , SB2112 , SB2118 , SB2127 , SB2134 , SB2135 , SB2139 , SB2154 , SB1195

Keywords: SB65, naloxone, Narcan, opioid overdose, overdose reversal, opioid antagonist, emergency opioid antagonist, substance abuse services, harm reduction, public health, overdose prevention, good samaritan, civil immunity, criminal immunity, controlled substances, addiction treatment, fentanyl, opioid crisis, school overdose response, first aid

Transcript Highlights:

• will be room for those who really need to be there.
• So we we need more spaces to people in. So we we need more spaces to keep<00:12:39.279><c> them.
• </c><00:18:34.160><c> Is</c> for people who really need them. Is for people who really need them.
• But I agree we definitely need stricter regulation. >> Mr.
• And so... >> I think some of that's already taken care of, but does need to be. >> So we just need to

Bills: SB24 , SB83 , SB142 , SB140 , SB94 , SB24 , SB83 , SB142 , SB140 , SB94 , HB132 , HB37 , HB51 , HB105 , HB54 , HB7 , HB158 , HB188 , HB189 , HB111 , HB13 , HB192 , HB149 , HB132 , HB37 , HB51 , HB105 , HB54 , HB7 , HB158 , HB188 , HB189 , HB111 , HB13 , HB192 , HB149

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: body-worn camera, public records, law enforcement transparency, recording disclosure, civil rights, adult-size changing table, changing station, accessible restroom, public bathroom, public building, public entity, ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, accessibility, restroom renovation, new construction, grant program, state grant, local government facilities, historic property

Transcript Highlights:

• Ski needs to go at 34 of them. Let's give him ever inpaskowsky. You ready to present 3407?
• I need to get bannny and tim and then we'll get fat Purpose of Banning, you're ready to present your
• I do think they'll probably need some more work on that before it gets to the floor.
• We have a committee sub that we need to move to adopt by unanimous consent.
• Need to adopt your policy recommendation. Thank you. Without objection, that'll be the order.

Bills: HB1322 , HB2015 , HB2933 , HB2941 , HB2959 , HB2977 , HB2981 , HB3040 , HB3055 , HB3062 , HB3087 , HB3115 , HB3134 , HB3244 , HB3297 , HB3298 , HB3299 , HB3304 , HB3319 , HB3321 , HB3322 , HB3323 , HB3345 , HB3407 , HB3471 , HB3497 , HB3500 , HB3505 , HB3544 , HB3581 , HB3648 , HB3755 , HB3764 , HB3765 , HB3767 , HB3906 , HB3974 , HB3982 , HB4104 , HB4105 , HB4106 , HB4107 , HB4108 , HB4126 , HB4130 , HB4139 , HB4144 , HB4170 , HB4202 , HB4226 , HB4227 , HB4236 , HB4260 , HB4343

Committee: House Judiciary and Public Safety Oversight

Keywords: domestic violence, offenders registry, public safety, law enforcement, victim protection, conviction records, landlord, tenant rights, rental agreement, housing safety, tenant protections, insurance regulation, homeowner claims, premium discounts, catastrophe mitigation, civil penalties, fentanyl, overdose, first responders, drug reporting

Transcript Highlights:

• They need access to the hospitals.
• it, and they need access to it.
• But no, you can't do that anymore because they need the food.
• We do need to look at the interest rate. I had legislation on wage garnishment.
• We need to take urgent action on this bill, and we need to make sure that we're continuing our work to

Bills: SB5223 , SB5993 , SB5831 , SB5928 , SB6183 , SB6071 , SB5995 , SB5966 , SB5841 , SB5840 , SB6061 , SB6058 , SB5931 , SB5944 , SB5520 , SB6011 , SB6087 , SB6076 , SB5916 , SB6016 , SB5936 , SB6137 , SB5185 , SB5956 , SB6025 , SB6009 , SB5833 , SB6161 , SB6188 , SB5890 , SB5917 , SB5820 , SB5973 , SJM8015 , SB5816 , SB6136 , SB6091 , SB6024 , SB5223 , SB6178 , SB5892 , SB5177 , SB6039 , SB5941 , SB5993 , SB5831 , SB5928 , SB5912 , SB6183 , SB6071 , SB5995 , SB5966 , SB5841 , SB5840 , SB6061 , SB6058 , SB5931 , SB5944 , SB5520 , SB6011 , SB6087 , SB6076 , SB5916 , SB6016 , SB5936 , SB6137 , SB5185 , SB5956 , SB6025 , SB6009 , SB5833 , SB6161 , SB6188 , SB5890 , SB5917 , SB5820 , SB5973 , SJM8015 , SB5816 , SB6136 , SB6091 , SB6024

Keywords: criminal offense, fingerprinting, law enforcement, state regulations, public safety, medical debt, interest charges, consumer protection, healthcare, financial burden, mortgage modification, uniform regulations, homeowners, financial stability, foreclosure prevention, wildfire risk, disclosure, safety, environmental policy, risk assessment

Transcript Highlights:

• It's projected that the General Fund will need to provide a backfill to this fund between now and 2036
• and the Immediate and Critical Needs Account until those funds became insolvent.
• And it's projected that the general fund will need to be providing a backfill to this fund between now
• Should we be funding from the General Fund into those funds based on what the needs are?
• to fund our reserves to meet the needs in case the downturn occurs.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation held a hearing focused on courthouse facility funding and the Governor’s budget proposals for the judicial branch. The Legislative Analyst’s Office outlined the state’s courthouse funding structure, including the Trial Court Facilities Act, the main facility funds, the fixed county facility payment, and the heavy reliance on General Fund backfill. LAO also explained that the state’s construction funds were depleted after large transfers and declining fine-and-fee revenue, leaving a backlog of roughly 80 construction projects and more than 22,000 deferred maintenance projects statewide. Members and witnesses discussed the long timelines for capital projects, the need for reassessments, and the impact of inflation, CEQA, and site acquisition delays. Judicial branch representatives, including Justice Hill, Judge Moorman, and Judge Tapia, testified that courthouses across the state face serious seismic, ADA, security, and maintenance problems. They described cost-cutting efforts in design and construction, but emphasized that many facilities are aging and unsafe, with examples from Los Angeles, Compton, Ukiah, and other courts involving flooding, elevator failures, asbestos issues, and closures that disrupted thousands of cases. Judge Moorman highlighted the Ukiah courthouse replacement as an example of a project that is on time and on budget and would improve access, safety, and community services. Judge Tapia stressed that deferred maintenance in Los Angeles County alone exceeds $1.4 billion and argued that preventive maintenance is fiscally prudent because emergency repairs and closures are more costly. Committee members pressed the panel on how priorities are set, whether caseload and population growth are adequately reflected, how quickly projects can be accelerated, and what level of funding would actually meet statewide needs. The Department of Finance and Judicial Council staff explained that the county contribution is fixed and not inflation-adjusted, that acquisitions require willing sellers and can be delayed by CEQA and market conditions, and that the Judicial Council’s prioritization process was based on 2019 criteria that may need updating. LAO cautioned that any new General Fund commitment would require tradeoffs with other state priorities and suggested the Legislature decide what level of funding it is willing to support. The committee also reviewed the Governor’s budget proposals for courthouse facilities, which include backfill for the construction fund, selected new construction and judgeship-related projects, and major facility modifications such as the Orange County Central Justice Center and relocation of Los Angeles courtrooms from the Spring Federal Building.

Transcript Highlights:

• They need $3.9 million in the General Fund.”
• Thank you for the VOCA funding. We definitely need more.
• Thank you for the VOCA funding. We definitely need more.
• Thank you for the VOCA funding. We definitely need more.
• Funds: why is additional General Fund needed for this effort this year when previously it has been funded

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's projected that the General Fund will need to be providing a backfill to this fund between now
• and the Immediate and Critical Needs Account until those funds became insolvent.
• Should we be funding from the General Fund into those funds based on what the needs are?
• Should we be funding from the General Fund into those funds based on what the needs are?
• to fund our reserves to meet the needs in case the downturn occurs.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation held a hearing focused first on courthouse facility funding and then on the Governor’s proposed court facilities budget. Legislative Analyst’s Office staff outlined the state’s court-facilities funding structure, including the 2002 shift of trial court facility responsibility from counties to the state, the main funding accounts, the insolvency of the construction fund, the move to General Fund support, the backlog of deferred maintenance, and the large estimated cost of needed new construction and repairs. Judicial Council representatives and judges from Los Angeles and Mendocino described severe seismic, safety, ADA, security, and maintenance problems, with examples of floods, elevator failures, asbestos-related closures, and long-delayed or underfunded projects. They argued that chronic underinvestment is making facilities less safe and more expensive to maintain, and that courthouse conditions directly affect access to justice and public confidence. Committee members pressed witnesses on how projects are prioritized, whether population and filing volume are adequately reflected, why reassessments have not been updated since 2019, how long acquisitions and construction take, and what level of funding would actually close the gap. Members also questioned the fixed county contribution, the use of General Fund backfills, and whether the state should set a clearer long-term funding target for the judicial branch. LAO staff emphasized that any new General Fund commitment would require tradeoffs with other budget priorities and said the Legislature must decide its appetite for funding. Judicial Council staff said the current prioritization was based on the 2019 reassessment and trailer bill language, that a new reassessment would cost about $14 million, and that acquisition delays are often driven by willing-seller issues and CEQA requirements. The chair asked for written testimony and indicated the committee would consider a future field hearing. In the second panel, Judicial Council and Department of Finance representatives reviewed the Governor’s budget proposals for court facilities. They said the proposal includes continued backfill for the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, several new construction and reappropriation items, relocation of Los Angeles courtrooms from the Spring Federal Building, and completion of a fire/life-safety project in Orange County. A court executive from Ventura testified that courthouse conditions affect public trust, employee morale, and the quality of service, citing roof leaks, elevator breakdowns, and HVAC failures as examples of why sustained facilities funding is needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• How to fund and prioritize the facility needs of the judicial branch will be the focus of our hearing
• And it's projected that the General Fund will need to be providing a backfill to this fund between now
• and the Immediate and Critical Needs Account until those funds became insolvent.
• Should we be funding from the General Fund into those funds based on what the needs are?
• that goes into funding every space that is needed within that judicial branch?

Transcript Highlights:

• First, the need for state funding is not clear.
• But why not fully fund what we already have and ensure that they have robust funding to meet the needs
• level, which in the Governor's Budget was able to fund 17.5 percent of unmet need for the May Revision
• The $20 million UC emergency funding for basic needs and disability services request, and additional
• We need this vital funding to help alleviate some of the pressures overall. Thank you.

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision proposals for higher education, beginning with the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education. Finance proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan used to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to allow budget flexibility for a remaining legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting the litigation costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about waiving interest on the loan, noting that special fund loans have historically been repaid with interest. Members asked about the litigation amount and the estimated interest savings, which Finance said would be about $245,000. The committee then discussed University of California funding, including the Governor’s proposed compact funding and a $1.5 million one-time increase for the First Star foster youth program at UC campuses. UC said the program has strong outcomes at UCLA, including a 100% college-going rate and high college completion rates, and that the new funding would expand the program to additional campuses and eventually be self-supporting through fundraising. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing that UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and that the new initiative would duplicate existing services. Several senators questioned whether the state should expand a new program instead of strengthening existing ones, while UC and Finance emphasized the program’s focus on foster youth and its high success rates. For the California Community Colleges, Finance outlined the May Revision’s increase to the Student-Centered Funding Formula COLA from 2.41% to 4.31%, along with enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time investments. The Chancellor’s Office supported the flexible “super COLA” approach and asked for more enrollment growth funding, arguing that many districts are already above current targets and that unfunded growth restricts access. The LAO recommended funding at least the statutory COLA, redirecting some ongoing funds to enrollment growth or one-time priorities, and rejecting the $9.7 million Adult Learner Demonstration Project because districts already have incentives to do similar work. Senators pressed Finance and the Chancellor’s Office on the use of COLA funds to cover the new paid pregnancy disability leave requirement, the impact on hold-harmless and basic-aid districts, and whether the state should fund actual enrollment growth rather than a flat COLA. The committee also reviewed California Student Aid Commission proposals, including adjustments to Cal Grant and Middle Class Scholarship funding, continued Golden State Teacher Grant funding, and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance said the Middle Class Scholarship changes reflected updated caseload estimates and that the higher 35% unmet-need level had been one-time funding, while CSAC urged continued support and noted the importance of financial aid for student success. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding as not well-targeted and urged caution on Workforce Pell trailer bill language, citing uncertainty about federal rules, ongoing administrative workload, and the need for clearer implementation planning. Members also raised concerns about declining CADAA applications and the need to better promote state aid for undocumented and mixed-status students. No votes were taken during the transcripted portion, and the committee moved through the agenda items with questions and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• First, the need for state funding is not clear.
• But two, to the extent that that funding isn't needed for that purpose, the community colleges have that
• level, which in the Governor's Budget was able to fund 17.5% of the unmet need for the May Revision.
• He also supports the $20 million UC emergency funding request for basic needs and disability services
• We need this vital funding to help alleviate some of the pressures overall. Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• So these are things that are needed, and I believe this is an important part; they need more funding.
• are needed, and these are things I believe this is an important part; they need more funding.
• We've created the fund; we need the money.
• to have a need from the general fund for any of these.
• And if we can do anything to shore up that fund, I think we need it for the people who need the most

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• care development funds, Proposition 64, and the need for mid-year transfers and funding for CCTR spaces
• care development funds, Proposition 64, and the need for mid-year transfers and funding for CCTR spaces
• funding levels are meeting actual need might not be accurate.
• , but the funding for the immediate needs TPA is not yet built into the state budget, which may need
• , which are funds that we rely on heavily to respond to community needs.

Summary: The committee heard an extensive Department of Social Services presentation on child care budget issues, including the Governor’s proposed 2026-27 budget, federal CCDF changes, Prop. 64 revenue adjustments, and a one-time $11.5 million disaster-related infrastructure grant for licensed child care facilities affected by 2025 declared disasters. DSS said federal formula updates and lower Prop. 64 revenues would reduce funding and could result in about 4,176 CCTR slots being reduced, but the department said it was working to avoid impacts to currently enrolled children. The LAO supported aligning general child care funding with lower revenues and asked for more detail on the disaster grant. Members pressed DSS and Finance on why reductions were not being backfilled and why so many awarded slots remain uncontracted or unused; DSS said delays are largely due to providers building new infrastructure, licensing, staffing, and enrollment challenges, and that some unspent funds revert to the General Fund. The committee also discussed whether some contract dollars should be shifted to vouchers and whether more flexibility should be allowed for infrastructure and expansion costs. A second panel focused on the state’s commitment to expand child care and on rate reform. DSS reported that nearly 125,000 new slots have been awarded since 2021-22, but speakers from Stanislaus County Office of Education, Parent Voices California, and the California Budget and Policy Center argued that unmet need remains large and that the system still leaves many families without access. Stanislaus County described a large local shortage of infant and toddler care and said reimbursement disparities between child care programs and state preschool create disincentives for providers. Parent Voices gave testimony about the burdens and instability families face when trying to access care, especially for survivors and low-income parents, and called for a universal, publicly funded system. The Budget Center said only about 16% of eligible children were enrolled in 2024, urged expansion across the mixed delivery system rather than concentrating investment in TK, and called for faster rate reform and new revenue. LAO estimated that bringing certain CCTR adjustment factors up to CSPP levels would cost $88 million to $131 million ongoing. Members and witnesses discussed the single rate structure, automation needs, and the need for deadlines and a ramp-up plan; DSS said the goal is to eliminate disparities, but that policy decisions are still needed before automation can proceed. The committee then reviewed several trailer bill proposals. DSS outlined a 2026-27 COLA proposal that would apply a 2.41% increase through cost-of-care-plus payments, though the department said it had inadvertently excluded CalWORKs Child Care and the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program and would revise the proposal; LAO recommended making the COLA methodology uniform across programs. DSS also proposed replacing the market rate survey with the federally approved alternative methodology on a triennial schedule, limiting temporary absences in family child care homes to 20% of monthly hours, defining excessive unexplained absences as more than 30 days in a year, and aligning family fee deductions with new federal requirements so providers receive the full voucher value. Members generally supported the temporary absence change and asked about implementation timing for the family fee deduction, with DSS saying it was in contact with Riverside County. The committee also heard a brief update on the Early Childhood Policy Council reappropriation, which would extend unused funds through June 30, 2028 because prior costs came in higher than expected.

Transcript Highlights:

• So school needs ongoing funding.
• So school needs are ongoing funding.
• the marginal cost formula to determine how much funding would be needed to fund those additional slots
• then use the marginal cost formula to determine how much funding would be needed to fund those additional
• enrollment funding should be distributed based on kind of the regional needs of the area.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on three education budget items: the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), differentiated assistance/statewide system of support, and universal school meals plus kitchen infrastructure grants. For ELOP, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to provide $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding and $62.4 million to set a minimum Tier 2 rate of $1,800 per pupil. The LAO recommended instead fixing the Tier 2 rate at $1,579, and committee members questioned how the rate was determined, how much funding is actually spent, and whether overlapping funding from ELOP, ACEs, and 21st Century programs is being tracked. CDE said ELOP is showing positive attendance and math outcomes, but some requested data will not be available until mid-2027; members also raised concerns about double-funding, transparency, and whether middle and high school students are being equitably served. On differentiated assistance, CCEE outlined the statewide system of support and the various tiers of universal, targeted, supplemental, and intensive assistance. Finance explained the Governor’s proposal to replace the current DA structure with a more stable universal and targeted assistance model, funded at $131.9 million ongoing, with a three-year support cycle aligned to LCAP and ESSA timelines and broader State Board authority to revise eligibility criteria. The LAO objected to considering the proposal before the State Board finalizes the new performance criteria, and committee members expressed concern that moving to a three-year cycle could delay support for LEAs that newly fall into need mid-cycle. There was also discussion about whether the proposal would weaken subgroup-based equity guardrails or give the State Board too much discretion over who qualifies for support. For school meals and kitchen infrastructure, Finance proposed $1.8 billion ongoing for universal meals and an additional $100 million ongoing plus $100 million one-time for a fourth round of kitchen infrastructure and training grants. The LAO recommended rejecting the new kitchen grant round because prior rounds are still being spent and the unmet need is not yet clear. CDE said prior investments have improved meal participation, efficiency, and menu variety, but many schools still lack the facilities for scratch cooking and face construction, electrical, and procurement barriers. Members asked for more data on how prior grants were used, which schools are benefiting, and whether funds could also support lower-cost food access strategies such as pantries, while noting federal restrictions on some meal-service innovations.

Transcript Highlights:

• As a result, it did not need the full funding amount for this program.
• These funds are an example of what needs to be protected.
• Fund and will no longer be needed for the project.
• county workforce needs and more funding for the food banks.
• in need, and we urge the funding of the diaper bank network.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so the purpose of this fund was really tailored to rural water providers who need the ability to
• They needed to find the funding to be able to do them.
• And so the purpose of this fund was really tailored to rural water providers who need the ability to
• They needed to find the funding to be able to do them.
• If federal funding were to dry up tomorrow, we would still have not only the money to need our existing

Committee: Senate Senate Natural Resources Committee of Reference

Summary: The Natural Resources Committee convened for introductions of members, staff, interns, and pages, with members briefly noting their districts and roles. The committee’s only agenda item was a presentation from the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA) by Director Chelsea McGuire, who outlined WIFA’s mission and recent work financing water infrastructure across Arizona. McGuire described three major funding programs: the rural water supply development revolving fund, the water conservation grant fund, and the long-term water augmentation fund. She said WIFA has financed nearly $3 billion in water infrastructure over 30 years, awarded about $87.3 million through the rural fund, and allocated $211 million in conservation grants expected to save 6.6 million acre-feet of water. She also said WIFA is out of conservation money and requested continued state support, while noting the revolving funds remain stable even if federal funding declines. A large portion of the discussion focused on the long-term augmentation fund and its competitive solicitation process. McGuire said WIFA identified a projected 100,000 to 500,000 acre-foot supply gap in 10 to 15 years and selected seven projects for further due diligence after receiving 17 responses, including desalination, reuse, groundwater storage, and exchange-based projects involving private partners. Senators asked about public transparency, project timelines, costs, and the need for state funding; McGuire said public engagement will continue, the projects are intended to match the identified time frame, and state funding is needed both to pay for due diligence and to reduce project risk and cost. No votes or formal actions were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• They need $3.9 million in the General Fund.
• To fund the programs at the current level, we will need $218 million.
• In 2023, the amount of funding we needed was $262 million.
• and the resources they need, and this funding is critical to allow us to do that.
• Why is additional General Fund needed for this effort this year when previously it has been funded through

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 held an informational hearing on the Governor’s May Revision proposals for labor, public safety/judiciary, and transportation, and no votes were taken. In Part A on labor, the Employment Development Department described funding for EDD Next document management work, updated UI loan interest costs, disability insurance and paid family leave benefit increases, WIOA adjustments, UI and school employee benefit changes, an EMT training reappropriation, and a technical correction tied to an EDD Next reversion. PERB discussed reduced funding requests for AB 288 due to litigation and a proposal to implement AB 1 covering legislative employees. DIR presented proposals for legal unit reclassifications, two major IT modernization projects, a new Cal/OSHA emerging technologies unit, a COIA reappropriation, and trailer bill language requiring electronic payment of employer assessments and removing a salary cap for the DWC administrative director. CalHR proposed consolidating employee assistance services into a statewide contract with enhanced support for first responders, and CalPERS and CalSTRS presented budget adjustments tied to investment costs, state contributions, and benefit overpayments. Members focused heavily on the unemployment insurance debt and interest payments, asking why the administration had no concrete plan to pay down principal. Finance and LAO explained that the state’s UI tax structure has long been insufficient and that any long-term solution would need to address both the outstanding federal loan and the structural imbalance in employer taxes. Questions also centered on EDD Next costs and timelines, with the chair asking for clearer long-term project cost estimates and Finance noting that future maintenance and operations costs will continue after implementation. On DIR’s emerging technologies unit, members asked whether it would address AI-driven workplace harms; DIR said the unit would focus on physical workplace safety issues involving AI, robotics, autonomous equipment, and related guardrails, while LAO noted broader labor-practice questions would likely fall outside Cal/OSHA’s scope. In the CalPERS discussion, members raised concerns about transparency in private equity and external management fees, while CalPERS said higher fees reflect a strategy of greater private-market and active-management exposure and are offset by higher net returns. Members urged more information on specific investments and future reporting. For CalSTRS, Finance presented routine contribution and overpayment adjustments, but members also raised broader transparency concerns that CalSTRS staff said they would follow up on separately. Public comment in Part A was dominated by strong support for an immigrant worker emergency relief fund, along with support for apprenticeship and workforce proposals and PERB staffing. The chair and members said they would follow up on where the immigrant relief proposal should be considered, noting it may belong in another policy area. The hearing then moved into Part B with an overview of Judicial Branch-related May Revision items, including court interpreter funding, appellate court security, workload cap changes, lactation room implementation delays, and a reduction to the state court facility construction backfill.

Transcript Highlights:

• This rider is no longer needed as ongoing funding will comprise of distributions from the Tough.
• Our next two requests highlight program expansion funds to meet the needs of our region and the state
• Additional HEAF dollars would free up much-needed funds for all of the non-PUF universities in the state
• However, if Dallas and Houston are to take the next step... ...we need investment that formula funding
• the source of funding for that needs to be changed for the method of finance moving forward.

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Article III

Transcript Highlights:

• I know there's a lot that needs to be done before we get to funding the...
• We believe no children need be disenrolled to justify this cut. Fund the 44,000 slots.
• care development funds, Proposition 64, and the need for mid-year transfers and funding for CCTR spaces
• funding levels are meeting actual need might not be accurate.
• Their funding needs to be responsive to those specific shifts in their journey.

Transcript Highlights:

• Funds, so that was federal money that came in, needed a match, couldn't get one.
• So, this is something they need to look at and we need to fund, if possible.
• So, both recommendations actually already fully fund what they need.
• However, it does require operational funds to continue. It's a need.
• What we need is funding.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance