Transcript Highlights:

• <00:13:48.079> are<00:13:48.480> is analysis are is analysis are is necessary<00:13:50.320
• the LTE and then the stationary budget the LTE and then the stationary budget but<00:35:07.079><
• <01:34:18.719> part but um BNF would be the budget part but um BNF would be the budget part
• questions as we go through this budget questions as we go through this budget um<05:00:16.000>
• I'm sure as we go through the budget I'm sure as we go through the budget requests<05:17:10.558>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Finance received an informational briefing from the Department of Law Enforcement on its priorities following the January 1 transfer of law enforcement assets into the department, including the sheriff’s division, narcotics enforcement, criminal investigations, homeland security, and the inspector general’s office. DLE said its goals are to improve public safety, accountability, communications, training, and standards. The department outlined planned initiatives such as stronger federal partnerships, narcotics and gun-violence enforcement, an agricultural crime unit, traffic and commercial vehicle enforcement, an explosive/fireworks enforcement section, gun buybacks, new police facilities in the airport area, Aahu, and the leeward side, a state training center, upgraded law-enforcement IT, and efforts to narrow salary gaps with county departments to improve recruitment. A major portion of the discussion focused on illegal fireworks enforcement after the recent explosion tragedy. DLE said its current task force is small and relies on ad hoc support from HPD, the Attorney General’s office, criminal investigations, and sheriffs, which is not sustainable. The department requested eight FTEs for the effort—one administrator, two clerical staff, and six investigators—plus funding for a laboratory, equipment, storage, disposal, vehicles, safety gear, and a criminalist. DLE said the explosive enforcement section would use an existing facility and that the initial lab startup cost is about $2 million. Members asked for follow-up materials, and DLE said it would send the explosive enforcement forms and additional details to the Finance and Judiciary chairs. Members also questioned staffing vacancies, interagency coordination, and whether new specialized units could be filled. DLE said it has about 119 vacancies and that recruitment is hindered by a roughly $28,000 starting pay gap with county police departments; academy classes are down to about 12 to 14 recruits. The department said it is streamlining hiring, using QR-code recruitment, and hopes specialized units will attract applicants. On coordination, DLE said it works closely with HPD and other agencies on operations such as fireworks enforcement and public events, and that DOCARE remains a case-by-case partner but is not currently moving into DLE. The committee also received updates on the Silver Alert program, which is nearing rollout with county MOUs and a coordinator expected later in the month, the special duty officer program, which is being moved to a web-based vendor-managed system at no cost to the department, and the SaferWatch school safety system, which is being deployed statewide with annual software costs of $3,500 per school in the first year and $2,500 thereafter. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• But that's not really a budget proposal; it is an op-ed. We have rumored proposals.
• But we need bills passed, or included in the budget package.
• This is the first extender bill of this budget season to get us through the next week.
• But there's very concerning to me a lack of urgency in moving this budget forward.
• BUT THERE'S VERY CONCERNING TO ME A LACK OF URGENCY IN MOVING THIS BUDGET FORWARD.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened, approved the prior journal, and then took up a Rules Committee report advancing several bills directly to third reading, including Senate Print 9630, an appropriations extender for government operations, and Senate Print 9631, an extender related to Part U1 of Chapter 61 of the Laws of 2023. The chamber then moved to the controversial calendar and debated the first extender, with Senator O’Mara questioning what the bill covered, how much funding it extended, and the status of budget negotiations. Senator Krueger said the extender covered about $1 billion for payroll and certain payments for agencies including Health, Law, OPWDD, and Veterans Services through April 7, and described the budget talks as still unresolved, with no announced follow-up Joint Budget Conference Committee meetings or table targets. She also discussed utility affordability proposals, including a three-year moratorium on A.I. and crypto data/storage facilities and support for green energy and low-income ratepayer relief. O’Mara argued the lack of urgency and absence of written proposals on climate and utility costs was concerning. Both extender bills were then passed, with the first receiving 59 ayes and the second passing 46-13 after debate over its two-year duration. The Senate then adopted the resolution calendar, excluding two items initially, and took up two resolutions. Resolution 1821, sponsored by Senator Ramos, recognized Farmworkers Day and highlighted the essential role of farmworkers, the history of organizing for farmworker rights, and concerns about immigrant workers facing fear and retaliation; Senator May added support, noting the importance of farm labor to dairy production and food supply and the impact of deportation fears on farms in her district. The resolution was adopted. Resolution 1823, sponsored by Senator Zellner, proclaimed March 20, 2026 as Behavior Analysis Day in New York, recognizing applied behavior analysis and its benefits for individuals with developmental disabilities, autism, education, healthcare, and other fields; it was also adopted. The chamber also welcomed a group of students from Queens visiting Albany, with Senator Comrie speaking about the importance of civics education and government engagement. After the introductions and acknowledgments, there was no further business, and the Senate adjourned until Wednesday, April 1, at 11:00 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we are here today to hear the budget and trailer bills that constitute our September budget package
• 2025 budget.
• Today I will be presenting on a Budget Bill Jr., which amends the 2025 Budget Act and associated budget
• Today I will be presenting on a Budget Bill Jr., which amends the 2025 Budget Act and associated budget
• Obviously, point-in-time projections are what we have for the budget to inform the budget.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the September budget package, which included SB 105 and a series of trailer bills covering health, human services, education, resources, child care, transportation, labor, public safety, housing, revenue, background checks, collective bargaining, and a special election. The Department of Finance described the package as largely technical and clarifying, but also responsive to state and federal changes, especially H.R. 1. Key items included roughly $3.3 billion in Proposition 4 climate and environmental spending, $540 million in discretionary greenhouse gas reduction funds, and major responses to H.R. 1 such as CalFresh error-rate mitigation, food bank support, and Medicaid-related changes. Other notable provisions included vaccine policy flexibility, an Abortion Access Fund, a gender-affirming care program, community college basic-needs and aid changes, CEQA and coastal permit exemptions tied to the 2028 Olympics, invasive mussel prevention funding, a civic media program, labor and pension-related provisions, and special election administration changes. Members raised questions and concerns about several parts of the package. There was support for climate, water, transit, offshore wind, food security, and health investments, but also significant criticism of the lack of cleanup language for SB 131 and its advanced manufacturing exemptions, with multiple members saying promised fixes had not materialized and expressing concerns about tribal consultation, labor standards, and environmental protections. Members also questioned the scale and timing of some Proposition 4 allocations, including fairground upgrades, regional conveyance, and a UC Davis alternative protein research center. The Department of Finance said some programs would roll out over time and that certain funding levels reflected current implementation capacity. The hearing also featured discussion of Bay Area transit financing, with Finance saying SB 105 directs the department and CalSTA to examine loan or other financing options rather than immediately providing loans. Members and public commenters also discussed the state’s response to H.R. 1, with advocates supporting food bank, health care, and immunization provisions while warning of ongoing harm to immigrants, foster youth, and other vulnerable groups. Public testimony broadly supported the health, food, water, offshore wind, and golden mussel provisions, while many speakers echoed legislative concerns about SB 131 and urged cleanup action in the next session. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only, though the chair noted votes on the bills were expected later that night or the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Your analysis on page six gets this exactly...
• And I would also point to the analysis as well.
• I think the analysis was very thorough and appreciate that.
• I think the analysis was very thorough and appreciate that.
• And while the analysis does a great job of outlining the standards for a First Amendment analysis of

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills related to reproductive access, child safety online, immigration enforcement in schools, health privacy, location data, digital provenance, reparations, and age assurance. AB 54 would protect the medication abortion supply chain and shield providers and others from liability; AB 1137 would strengthen reporting and enforcement tools for child sexual abuse material on social media; AB 49 would limit ICE activity at California public schools; AB 82 would expand privacy and safety protections for gender-affirming care patients and providers; AB 1355 would restrict the collection, use, and sale of precise location data; AB 853 would expand provenance requirements for AI-generated and authentic content; AB 62 would create a pathway for restitution for racially biased eminent domain takings; and AB 1043 would create a device-based age assurance framework for online services. Supporters generally framed the bills as necessary responses to current harms: reproductive rights advocates emphasized California’s role as a safe haven; child safety witnesses described the persistence and re-victimization caused by CSAM online; immigrant rights and education advocates said schools should remain safe from immigration enforcement; health and LGBTQ+ advocates stressed privacy and safety risks tied to tracking and harassment; privacy and consumer groups backed limits on location data and stronger provenance tools; and reparations advocates said AB 62 would help address historic injustices. Opposition came from family policy, tech, business, law enforcement, and industry groups, who raised concerns about safety claims, constitutional issues, implementation burdens, transparency, law enforcement access, and the need to preserve existing privacy frameworks and voluntary standards. The committee members largely expressed support for the policy goals while noting implementation concerns on some measures. Several members asked for or were offered coauthor status on bills. AB 1137, AB 54, AB 49, AB 82, AB 1355, AB 853, and AB 62 all received do-pass votes to Appropriations, with some members voting no or not voting on certain bills. AB 1355 and AB 853 were advanced with amendments or ongoing work promised with opponents, and AB 1043 was presented with discussion of possible amendments on parental consent and age assurance details, though the transcript cuts off before final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• eight years, serving most recently as the Deputy Policy Coordinator for the Finance and Economic Analysis
• Previously, she worked for the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, otherwise
• They try to do a per capita analysis and rank where states are with how much revenue they generate based
• Of budget years to come, we are in a very good and a comfortable position, given how our revenues are
• We just started a new revenue estimating conference cycle for the budget, so some of the numbers— We

Summary: The Senate Committee on Finance and Tax convened with a quorum present, heard an introductory presentation of committee staff, and then received a staff briefing from Azar Khan on Florida’s state tax structure and revenue outlook. The presentation covered fiscal year 2023-2024 revenues, noting more than $127 billion in total state revenue, with general revenue exceeding $48 billion and sales and use tax making up the largest share. It also compared Florida’s tax burden to other states, highlighted Florida’s low per-capita revenue ranking and strong business formation numbers, and reviewed major and minor revenue sources, tax rates, and the revenue estimating conference process. Members asked about what drives revenue growth, including population, tourism, construction, and auto sales, and about Florida’s regressivity, corporate income tax participation, and investment earnings on state balances. Khan said the state’s revenue picture remains positive and stable, but that future growth is slower than during the COVID-era spike; he also explained that some negative forecast changes were tied to legislative actions such as the insurance premium tax credit, while others reflected lower tobacco consumption and severance activity. He noted that revenue and spending forecasts are separate and that budget-side growth is driving concerns raised in other state economic projections. The committee also discussed possible tax package ideas for the upcoming session, including tax holidays and homeowner relief, but no specific proposals were acted on. The chair announced the committee would not meet the following week and that the next meeting would be in week three of February. The meeting concluded with no objections to a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• THEN WE WORKED WITH OUR PARTNERS TO CONDUCT AN ANALYSIS THAT ALIGN THE IDENTIFIED OCCUPATIONS WITH THEIR
• THIS INFORMATION WAS SHARED WITH BOTH INDUSTRY AND OUR PARTNERS AND TO USE THE ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY IF
• THE CONCLUSION OF THIS ANALYSIS WAS THAT WHILE THEY WERE ALREADY PROGRAMS AVAILABLE THE ONES THAT DID
• THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A MIX OF EXPENDITURES AND BUDGET BUT TRYING TO SIMPLIFY TO GIVE YOU A PICTURE
• I'M CHRIS WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR BUDGET IS SPENT ON TRAINING, NOT CAREER RELATED SERVICES BUT ACTUAL

Transcript Highlights:

• General funded um however two budget General funded um however two budget sessions<00:51:05.760>
• It's released after the budgets are set because the budgets are set in the previous year, right?
• education w at all for the budgeting education w at all for the budgeting that's<01:20:07.560>
• 50 million allocated in each budget 50 million allocated in each budget year<01:32:48.440> is
• that opportunity over three budget that opportunity over three budget periods<01:39:34.800> to

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:

• present SB 954, which provides thoughtful improvements to the CEQA exemptions passed through the Budget
• Last year, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 131 through the budget process, which created over a dozen
• As the committee analysis notes, high-road employment standards are becoming the standard.
• And, as previously in the Natural Resources Committee, when their analysis outlined all the facilities
• And I voted on the budget with the understanding that we would come back and fix some of these issues

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I like the first analysis better, but I think we can work something out here, so I'm not asking that
• This bill was somewhat anticipating that budget action.
• Analysis through paralysis. CEQA is like, again, I'll say it again, aspirin. Like aspirin.
• We recognize it's not a full CEQA analysis that the opposition is looking for.
• First, I would like to begin by accepting the amendments proposed in the committee analysis.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As noted in your analysis, this bill would require minor absorbable General Fund costs to the CDE.
• The Dream Loan Program has a fixed budget of roughly $2 million annually, and AB 681 would allow existing
• The Dream Loan Program has a fixed budget of roughly $2 million annually, and AB 681 would allow existing
• As the committee's analysis points out, the fiscal impact of this bill should be minimal.
• And pleased to be here, as you can tell from the fiscal analysis, is less than half a P.Y. that we're

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on April 9, 2025, with a large regular-order agenda and a consent calendar. The committee first approved a set of unanimous consent bills, then heard and acted on several measures, generally with authors describing them as having minor or absorbable fiscal effects. Bills discussed included AB 439 on Coastal Act streamlining, AB 322 on school-based health and mental health reimbursement participation, AB 679 on state park land acquisition exemptions, AB 482 updating the California Table Grape Commission law, AB 681 increasing the Dream Loan Program cap, AB 40 clarifying emergency services include reproductive health care, AB 454 making the California Migratory Bird Protection Act permanent, AB 572 creating protections for families of people killed or seriously injured by peace officers, and AB 639 narrowing the definition of dams to avoid extra regulation for certain water operators. Testimony was largely in support of the bills. Supporters included representatives from the University of California, the California Table Grape Commission, Audubon California, Sempervirens Fund, emergency physicians, health equity groups, water districts, and several impacted family members and advocacy organizations on AB 572. AB 572 drew especially emotional testimony from family members describing police-involved deaths and the need for transparency and protection from coercive questioning. No organized opposition was raised on most of the bills heard in committee, though AB 439 drew no-votes from some Republicans, and AB 572 and other measures were framed as low-cost or cost-neutral. The committee reported the bills out on roll calls after motions and seconds, with several measures passing on B-roll calls and AB 482 passing on an A-roll call. After the hearing on presented bills, the committee also approved the suspense calendar and accepted brief public comment on bills not heard that day, including opposition to AB 339 and support for AB 335. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:15:17.279> budget.
• Because I know that the department's budget is over half the state budget. >> Yes.
• Because I know that the department's budget is over half the state budget. >> Yes.
• Because I know that the department's budget is over half the state budget. >> Yes.
• , there's the budget our budget this year, there's the budget and<00:37:33.280> then<00:37:33.440

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• To their operating budgets, including drawdowns in cash balances, restrictions on out-of-state travel
• Increasing math outcomes is also a priority for you all, and so you'll hear tomorrow about our budget
• So, we can run that analysis and get you an estimate.
• Are they giving you any guidelines on what that will mean for budget processes, or if that will...
• We can now track where that money goes and match it to the budgets and the plans that come back.

Transcript Highlights:

• Not to mention in the middle of a budget Not to mention in the middle of a budget cycle. cycle.
• out of their budget. out of their budget.
• The school budget is a line item in our municipal budget.
• Uh the school budget is a line budget.
• analysis is a little over $1. analysis is a little over $1.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I also want to compliment the staff counsel's analysis of the bill.
• This section shall become operative only upon the Budget Act...
• It could be five, according to the staff analysis.
• So you can see all the amendments in the analysis. I'm happy to go through them.
• You can see all the amendments in the analysis. I'm happy to go through them.

Summary: The committee met as a subcommittee without quorum at first, then later established quorum and continued hearing several bills. SB 27, the annual CARE Court cleanup bill, would require courts to consider CARE referral for certain misdemeanor defendants found incompetent to stand trial, combine some hearings, allow limited data sharing among licensed medical professionals, and expand eligibility to include mood disorders with psychotic features. Supporters said it would clarify the meaning of “clinically stabilized,” streamline the process, and help more severely ill people receive treatment; opponents argued it would expand CARE Court too broadly, strain county resources, and divert attention from housing and voluntary services. The bill passed to the Health Committee on a roll call vote and was placed on call. SB 82, dealing with so-called “infinite arbitration clauses,” would limit consumer contract arbitration provisions to disputes arising from the product or service actually purchased. The author and supporters said the bill would stop companies from forcing arbitration in unrelated claims and would not ban arbitration itself. Opponents from business and banking groups argued the language was too restrictive, could create litigation over related transactions, and should be clarified as prospective only. The committee approved the bill and placed it on call after a roll call vote. The committee then heard two reparations-related bills. SB 437 would direct CSU to develop a genealogical methodology and framework for verifying descendants of enslaved people, with oversight, reporting, and guardrails tied to recently allocated state funding. Supporters said the bill would create a fair, evidence-based process; opponents, including professional genealogists and reparations advocates, argued the work is already well understood, the bill is unnecessary, and it could delay action. SB 518 would create a Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery within state government, with divisions for genealogy, property reclamation, outreach, and legal affairs. Supporters framed it as needed infrastructure to implement reparations recommendations; opponents objected to locating it in the Department of Justice, warned about data privacy and law enforcement control, and criticized the inclusion of broader communities. Both bills were moved to Appropriations and placed on call. The committee also heard SB 52, the End AI Rent Hikes Act, which would prohibit the use of algorithms to collude on and artificially inflate rental prices; the author and supporters described it as a response to AI-assisted rent fixing in California’s housing market.

Transcript Highlights:

• request, which we'll be dealing with as part of the budget, the baby budget bill.
• Just last month, ICE got another $70 billion with the budget bill.
• A recent DME analysis followed drivers who received a DUI in 2005.
• I want to start by thanking the committee for their thoughtful analysis.
• Per the analysis, we will be adding amendments.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It only presented our initial budget.
• gotten for the travel and tourism budget gotten for the travel and tourism budget is<00:53:50.720
• <00:57:50.559> is travel and tourism budget is travel and tourism budget is calculated<00:
• The motion to retain Senate Bill 63 passed, 8 to 1. budget and at this point the budget is budget and
• <01:21:17.040> Not in your capital budget requests? Not in your capital budget requests?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 74, which would require agencies issuing certain real-property-related permits to track and report how many permits they issue and how long the process takes. Representative Carol McGuire introduced the bill and said the goal is to gather data on permit timing and fees, especially for DES and DOT permits involving wetlands, alteration of terrain, driveway permits, and similar approvals. Supporters argued the state needs better visibility into permitting delays and whether statutory deadlines are realistic; they also noted the bill had passed the House on a voice vote with no debate. Adam Crapo of the Department of Environmental Services said DES is generally supportive of the reporting concept but warned that the agency’s data are spread across many separate, partly manual databases. He said DES can already do this for some land resources permits through its new system, but not across all of its more than 90 permit types without additional help. DES estimated it would need two part-time positions to compile the reports, especially for waste management and water programs, and said otherwise existing permitting staff would have to do the work, potentially slowing permit processing. He also said the agency is already working to simplify rules and move more permits onto a new online platform, but could not meet the bill’s 2026 reporting deadline with current staffing and systems. Committee members questioned whether delays are often caused by incomplete applications rather than agency inaction, and Crapo said that is frequently the case. He said DES already tracks timelines to some extent for management and statutory compliance, but not at the individual-permit detail the bill would require. He also said some letters and records are captured in One Stop, but not all are. Members expressed support for the bill’s transparency goals while also worrying about added workload and possible slowdowns. The discussion then moved to DOT, where Susan Clawson said DOT is neutral on the bill because it recently implemented Salesforce and now has good data for reporting; DOT’s fiscal note reflects software-related costs, but the agency can already track the required information in its system.

Transcript Highlights:

• Very quickly, the temporary provisions essentially deal with two big pieces in the budget.
• And that's about a 23 million hit in their current year budget. Mr.
• So it is a hit to their budget, whether or not they will still receive basic program funding.
• There's about $1 million in the budget currently for that purpose, but that's statewide.
• I do, I'm looking at the Legislative Education Study Committee bill analysis.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• see budget deficits in upcoming years.
• see budget deficits in upcoming years.
• So before you today are two budget proposals.
• Madam Chair, this budget item proposes $5 million... ...and Strategic Communications.
• So specifically, the budget change proposal... Over a multi-year period.

Summary: The subcommittee held an informational budget hearing covering several GovOps, CDT, CPPA, and DGS items. GovOps reported that most deliverables under the Governor’s generative AI executive order have been completed, including guidelines, procurement tools, community-impact guidance, and a new project delivery lifecycle for Gen AI projects; one workforce-related deliverable remains. Members and public commenters raised concerns about privacy, labor impacts, and how the state will explain and oversee Gen AI use. The committee also heard a proposal to create a California Education Interagency Council with $5 million ongoing and 16 positions to coordinate workforce and education systems; LAO questioned duplication and recommended limited-term funding, while supporters said a neutral convening body is needed to improve coordination and student outcomes. GoServe presented the College Corps budget proposals, describing the program as a paid service and career-development opportunity for undergraduate students that helps reduce college costs while supporting communities through tutoring, food insecurity work, climate and disaster response, and other service. The administration sought one-time and ongoing funding to expand the program to more campuses and students, while LAO objected to the high administrative costs and recommended rejection. Several students and alumni testified that College Corps provided financial support, professional experience, and career pathways. The committee also heard a $5 million proposal for a Belonging Campaign to address loneliness and social isolation through research, outreach, and local grants; LAO said the proposal lacked clear goals and measures, while supporters said the effort is needed for youth, seniors, and community resilience. The Department of Technology updated the Middle Mile Broadband Initiative, saying construction is underway on the statewide open-access network and the project remains on track for the 2026 deadline, though LAO noted a required business plan had not yet been submitted. The California Privacy Protection Agency presented its Delete Act implementation request for the DROP platform, which will let consumers request deletion of personal information held by data brokers; LAO flagged oversight concerns because CDT is both developing the system and involved in project support. Public commenters from business groups urged caution on CPPA’s rulemakings, warning of compliance costs and job impacts. The Department of General Services then discussed implementation of Proposition 2 school facilities bonds, requesting staffing and administrative funding to manage the new bond program and continue school facility work. Officials said the program can also help districts affected by the January wildfires, including interim site funding and expedited assistance. Finally, DGS requested authority and positions to operate Building 18 for labor-agency tenants relocating from older Capitol Mall space; SEIU Local 1000 criticized the state’s four-day return-to-office policy and said telework has improved productivity and retention. No formal votes were taken; the hearing concluded after public testimony and member questions on each item.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee will come to order. Cianna, please call the roll.
• Members, in the Pre-K through 12 budget, there is the Early Learning Budget Entity.
• DL was required to develop and submit a budget amendment for approval.
• we asked in our budget amendment for 12.3 to implement this program, again, potentially, budget amendment
• The last time I did the analysis, Florida was one of the six lowest states.

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met with a quorum and focused on School Readiness, specifically the new provider reimbursement rates and the School Readiness Plus program. The chair gave an overview of how School Readiness is funded and administered, noting that the Legislature now sets county-based reimbursement rates using market and cost data, and that School Readiness Plus was created to help families who would otherwise fall off the subsidy “cliff” at 85% of state median income by extending assistance up to 100% of state median income. Panelists from the Children’s Forum, the Association of Early Learning Coalitions, and the Division of Early Learning described the programs as major workforce and family-support tools that help parents stay employed and help providers recruit and retain qualified staff. Testimony emphasized that higher reimbursement rates increase parental choice, help providers cover rising child care costs, and support better staffing and lower turnover. The panel also said School Readiness Plus is easing the pressure on families to turn down raises or promotions for fear of losing child care assistance, though uptake is still early because the program only began in late 2024 and is only available to current School Readiness families at redetermination. The Division of Early Learning reported about 275 children enrolled in School Readiness Plus as of March 10, with expenditures of about $161,420 through January 2025, and said participation is increasing. Members asked about the federal-state funding split, wait lists, reverted funds, coalition accountability, county-based rate differences, and whether the entrance eligibility threshold should be raised or shifted to state median income. The panel said roughly 70% of School Readiness funding is federal, about 4% has typically reverted in recent years, and the wait list is around 12,000 children, with reasons including income ineligibility, lack of available seats, and funding limits. They argued that raising the entrance threshold would expand access but would require additional funding, and they also discussed the need to reduce workforce barriers such as in-person testing and training requirements. The meeting ended with no formal action beyond the presentation and member discussion, and the subcommittee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The budget proposal identifies a number of tasks that need to be completed in the budget year.
• Your comment that the timing doesn't match up between the state's budget timeline, the state budget process
• Assemblymember, I think that this is why in lean budget times, frankly, and in lush budget times, we
• Fund in the state budget.
• Earlier this month, our office released an analysis on a proposal in the governor's budget to suspend

Keywords: 988, house, all