Transcript Highlights:

• our state's fiscal situation, how we got here, what our processes are for developing the operating budget
• And I also hope it can serve as a forum for us to really objectively analyze our budget processes, especially
• And I also hope it can serve as a forum for us to really objectively analyze our budget processes, especially
• budget.
• Next up, we're going to touch on budget reserves in the four-year outlook process.

Summary: The committee held its first meeting, with co-chairs and members introducing themselves and staff outlining the committee’s statutory mandate under the 2025-27 supplemental operating budget. Staff explained that the Joint Legislative-Executive Committee on Budget Transparency and Fiscal Sustainability will receive technical assistance from a nonpartisan organization, with work split into two phases: first on revenue growth, spending assumptions, and cost drivers in the four-year outlook, and later on staffing, overhead, performance management, and public reporting. Members broadly said they hoped the committee would build a shared factual understanding of the state’s fiscal situation, structural deficits, and budget processes, and identify a sustainable path forward for the operating budget. Staff then gave a detailed presentation on operating budget basics. They reviewed the size and composition of the operating budget, noting that most spending is concentrated in grants/client services and salaries/benefits, with K-12, DSHS, HCA, DCYF, DOC, and higher education making up most NGFO spending. They explained the distinction between constitutional, federal, statutory, and discretionary spending, using examples such as K-12, Medicaid, collective bargaining agreements, court-driven obligations like McCleary and Trueblood, and one-time appropriations. They also walked through how the state uses incremental budgeting, carry-forward and maintenance-level calculations, caseload and per-capita forecasting, and the four-year balanced budget outlook, including reserve calculations and the budget stabilization account. Members asked extensive questions about what is and is not included in the outlook, especially future collective bargaining agreements, health care and compensation growth, tort and other liabilities, and whether the state could better distinguish mandatory from discretionary spending. Staff explained that current CBAs and other already-enacted obligations are included, but future CBAs are not; some liabilities are reflected as expenditures when appropriated, while broader long-term liabilities are not fully captured in the outlook because they depend on future policy choices. Staff also noted that the legislature and ERFC can adopt assumptions such as reversions and growth factors, and that an outlook accuracy report is produced every five years to compare projected and actual maintenance-level spending. The committee agreed to follow up on some of the more complex liability and assumption questions. After a short break, Josh Goodman of the Pew Charitable Trusts began a presentation on Pew’s role and approach to state fiscal sustainability. He described Pew as a nonpartisan organization with long-standing state fiscal research, emphasizing its 50-state comparative data, interviews with state officials and experts, and focus on long-term sustainability, reserve policies, and recession preparedness. The presentation was ongoing when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's been clear to anyone who's been watching our budget process over the last years that housing
• Or deciding on serious policy through a budget trailer process.
• the budget must be an all-inclusive process.
• This language must be pulled from the budget and returned to the regular policy process where it can
• This language must be pulled from the budget and returned to the regular policy process where it can

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the final three-party budget agreement and related trailer bills, with the Department of Finance outlining the major budget bill and omnibus measures. Finance described a package built around balancing the state budget amid economic uncertainty, preserving core health and safety-net programs, and making significant ongoing reductions in some state programs. The budget bill included major items such as shifting $1 billion from the General Fund to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for Cal Fire, funding universal transitional kindergarten, deferring some UC and CSU funding, supporting foster care and homelessness programs, providing Proposition 36 implementation funding, and achieving Medi-Cal savings through changes to benefits and eligibility. The committee also heard that votes on the budget bills were expected later in the week and the following Monday. Finance then walked through the trailer bills, including health, human services, early learning, education, resources, energy, transportation, labor, housing, tax, public safety, courts, general government, cannabis, and energy-related measures. Notable provisions included a Medi-Cal enrollment freeze for certain adults, new premiums and benefit changes for some immigrants, child care COLA changes, education funding for literacy, teacher support, universal meals, and community college student support, as well as resource and climate measures affecting Cal Fire staffing and energy permitting. The housing trailer bill drew the most discussion, with provisions on CEQA streamlining, a vehicle miles traveled mitigation banking program, a renters’ credit trigger, and a six-year moratorium on new residential building standards. Members also discussed a film tax credit expansion, cannabis enforcement funding, a tribal police pilot program, and changes to tax policy, including military retirement income exclusions and wildfire settlement payment exclusions. Committee members largely praised the staff and the budget process, but several raised concerns and asked detailed questions, especially about the housing trailer bill’s new wage standards, tribal consultation provisions, and possible effects on prevailing wage protections. Finance explained that the housing language was intended to set wage floors for market-rate projects receiving CEQA streamlining, with different county-based tiers and a notwithstanding clause preserving existing prevailing wage laws. Members also questioned the size and timing of funding for the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, Clean Cars for All, Proposition 36, and the film tax credit expansion. Other members highlighted support for public safety, veterans’ tax relief, child care providers, housing production, and higher education, while some expressed concern that the budget’s policy changes were being negotiated too quickly or without enough stakeholder input.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the point is that they work hour after hour trying to process everything that comes through our budget
• I think it's been clear to anyone who's been watching our budget process over the last two years that
• able to Our process in creating the budget must be an all-inclusive one.
• We strongly oppose efforts to roll back CEQA and behind-closed-doors deals in the budget process and
• At the very least, this language must be pulled from the budget and returned to the regular policy process

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, the Criminal and Civil Justice Budget, and steady guidance throughout the budget process.
• Coming up here, visiting the team, because sitting at home, we were doing the budget process like we
• And thank you for everything you did in this process to get this budget to where it is today. Mr.
• Thank you for your leadership in making sure that the Florida Senate got the budget process as good as
• And you were there every story. got the budget process as good as we could get it and you were there

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the conference report on House Bill 501E, the General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2026-27. Budget chairs presented the major spending areas, describing a $114.5 billion overall budget that they said was fiscally responsible and below the prior year’s spending. Highlights included pay increases and retirement adjustments for public safety employees, education funding for K-12, higher education, health and human services, criminal justice, transportation, environmental programs, and agriculture/regulatory agencies. Members then questioned chairs on several items. In education, senators discussed K-12 declining enrollment funding, teacher salary set-asides, private school scholarship spending, mental health funding, preeminence funding for universities, the Hamilton Center at UF, and charter school PICO funding. In health and human services, questions focused on the iBudget waiver waitlist, provider rates, ADAP/HIV funding and the return of Biktarvy to the formulary, KidCare, rural health funding, SNAP-related IT and error reduction efforts, and the IDD managed care program. In criminal justice, senators asked about correctional officer pay, prison staffing and infrastructure, air conditioning in prisons, juvenile justice facilities, law enforcement recruitment, and court system funding. Environmental and transportation questions covered Florida Forever, water quality, state parks, water projects, housing, elections funding, and emergency management. Several specific actions and explanations were given during debate: the budget includes $8.8 million for state attorney competitive area differentials but no funding for public defender CAD requests; assistant state attorneys will start at $70,000 and assistant public defenders at $65,000; the battery disposal issue was described as a temporary study/preemption approach; and the Senate said the budget does not fund Medicaid expansion, preeminence funding, or the SunBucks Summer EBT state share. Senators also noted that some proposals discussed in committee did not make it into the final budget. The transcript ends with debate statements from members praising the budget process and Chair Hooper, while also expressing concerns about public schools, health care access, affordability, and the lack of funding for certain priorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, the Criminal and Civil Justice Budget, and steady guidance throughout the budget process.
• The budget includes $3.1 million in additional due process funding for state attorneys and public defenders
• I truly think that this is an amazing, incredibly different type of process from the budgeting that I've
• And thank you for everything you did in this process to get this budget to where it is today. Mr.
• Thank you for your leadership in making sure that the Florida Senate got the budget process as good as

Summary: The Senate took up the conference report on House Bill 501E, the General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2026-27, with Chair Hooper and the appropriations chairs walking through the $114.5 billion budget. Major highlights included pay increases for state law enforcement, firefighters, park rangers, and correctional officers; funding for teacher salary increases and K-12 enrollment stabilization; workforce and university funding in higher education; major Medicaid, nursing home, waiver, and opioid-related investments in health and human services; corrections and prison-capacity funding; transportation, housing, and emergency management spending; and large environmental appropriations for Florida Forever, Everglades restoration, and water quality projects. Members then asked detailed questions about specific items. Senators pressed on the Hamilton Center at UF, the difference between assistant state attorney and public defender pay, declining student enrollment funding, private school scholarship vouchers, mental health funding in schools, the lack of preeminence funding, APD’s iBudget waiver wait list and provider rates, ADAP premium assistance and the return of Biktarvy to the formulary, prison staffing and air conditioning, Florida Forever land-buying versus easements, SNAP and Sun Bucks funding, Hope Florida, election audit funding, and the IDD managed care program. Chairs generally explained the negotiated compromises, noted where funding was flat or omitted, and in several cases said items would be revisited next year or depended on agency implementation. Several senators used debate to praise the budget while also criticizing major policy choices. Leader Berman argued the state should have expanded Medicaid, invested more in public schools instead of vouchers, and accepted federal summer EBT funds. Other senators highlighted local wins such as Biscayne Bay restoration, Tri-Rail, housing assistance, ADAP funding, and declining enrollment support. The transcript ends with debate remarks thanking Chair Hooper for his work on the budget; no final vote is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• in statute for creating a process in statute for creating a municipal<00:53:19.920> budget<00
• There’s already a clear process for recision of budget committees, and that current process allows municipalities
• recision of already a clear process for recision of budget<00:58:18.000> committees<00:58:18.720
• The budget committee is the process.
• budget process.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we look forward to working with you throughout the remainder of the budget process and are happy to
• During the 2025-26 budget process, similar to the consumer complaint system replacement, the DMHC requested
• process, and funds are not authorized until the signing of the Budget Act.
• process, and funds are not authorized until the signing of the Budget Act.
• Also, in the Jan. 10 budget, number three, we proposed a new federal grievance process.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The hearing opened with Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst’s Office remarks on the May Revision, which both described efforts to reduce large out-year operating deficits through a mix of revenue increases, spending reductions, and reserve use. Finance said the May Revision more than halves projected deficits in later years, while LAO stressed that revenues are at unprecedented levels yet the state still faces a significant structural deficit and is drawing down reserves; LAO urged maintaining at least the administration’s level of budget solutions and adding to reserves rather than new ongoing commitments. The chair echoed concern about cuts to vulnerable populations and noted the tension between service reductions and requests for additional administrative positions. The committee then heard a series of California Health and Human Services and HCAI proposals, including additional legal support for CalHHS to respond to federal HR1 changes; a net-zero transfer of positions for a centralized eligibility/data-sharing platform; 988 crisis line implementation funding and continued work with the Trevor Project to train crisis centers to better serve LGBTQ youth; EMS data system maintenance funding; HCAI implementation of AB 1312 hospital charity care screening; SB 660 data exchange framework funding; CalRx biosimilar insulin reappropriation; and a diaper access initiative that would provide free diapers to newborns in participating hospitals and support a future direct-to-consumer purchasing option. Members questioned the diaper program’s universal design, the use of a Public Contract Code exemption, and the selection of Baby2Baby, with the chair expressing concern about optics and the lack of an income threshold. The committee also discussed distressed hospital funding, with HCAI requesting up to $50 million for another round of grants to hospitals in immediate financial distress. HCAI said it receives annual and quarterly financial reports but the data lag limits real-time monitoring, and the LAO recommended stronger program parameters and turnaround plans. Members argued the repeated need for distressed hospital aid reflects a structural problem, not a short-term gap, and raised broader concerns about hospital reimbursement and patient flow. Other items included reverting $19.6 million in unused opioid settlement funds from HCAI to DHCS for General Fund offset, and a Rural Health Transformation Program request to increase HCAI spending authority to cover the full federal award. Later, DMHC presented funding requests to implement PBM licensing and financial review requirements under AB 116, modernize the managed care complaint system, and build an electronic claims settlement data system under AB 3275. The final major discussion focused on the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, which opposed the May Revision’s proposed reduction of its Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and a $6.7 million cut to community advocacy grants. The Commission argued these programs are core to Proposition 1’s goals of statewide innovation and community accountability, while Finance said the proposal is consistent with Proposition 1’s maximum funding levels and reflects a broader effort to prioritize direct services and use unspent prior-year funds; members pressed for more information and questioned whether the cuts would undermine the new behavioral health framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so part of their budget process, and we go back to that timeline here, by the time we get their budget
• Wanted to drive more into what does the budget process look like.
• Wanted to drive more into what is the budget process look like.
• I took a little different spin on the budget process fiscal year.
• I took a little different spin on the budget process fiscal year.

Summary: The Committee on Community Affairs convened with a quorum and took up SB 308, a bill related to the Florida Museum of Black History. The bill would establish a Florida Museum of Black History Board of Directors and direct it to work with a supporting nonprofit foundation, while also requiring the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners to provide administrative assistance and staffing until planning, design, and engineering are complete. With no appearance forms or debate, the committee voted the bill favorably. The remainder of the meeting was an informational briefing from the Florida Association of Counties and the Florida League of Cities on local government budgeting practices. Presenters explained how counties and cities develop budgets, the legal framework governing property taxes and other revenues, the distinction between restricted and unrestricted funds, and the role of constitutional officers, public safety, debt, pensions, and capital planning. They emphasized that most local revenues are restricted by law, that general funds are the main discretionary source, and that local governments must balance annual budgets while meeting mandated service levels. The presenters also discussed how property taxes, fees, local option taxes, and state-shared revenues support local services, and they highlighted the fiscal pressures created by public safety, emergency management, infrastructure, and retirement costs. Members asked questions about the share of local revenue that is unrestricted and the implications for any proposal to eliminate property taxes. The presenters responded that only a portion of county and municipal revenue is flexible, with much of it dedicated to specific purposes by law.

Transcript Highlights:

• Reserve budget generally the budget Reserve budget generally the budget Reserve trust<00:03:58.599
• We thought it would be a better process, and it in fact was a better process.
• We thought it would be a better process, and it in fact was a better process.
• We thought it would be a better process, and it in fact was a better process.
• our budget units.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The House Budget Review Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education and Workforce Development received a presentation from Kentucky Department of Education officials on the final SEEK estimate for fiscal year 2025. Commissioner Robbie Fletcher, Matt Ross, and Chay Ritter explained that SEEK is developed through a consensus process with the Office of the State Budget Director using multiple models and district-level inputs, and that the estimate is a projection made well before actual data are available. They emphasized that the discussion was separate from the pending education-funding lawsuit and described SEEK as one part of a much larger K-12 budget picture. The presenters said the current SEEK estimate shows a statutory shortfall of about $14.7 million, or roughly 0.53% of the appropriation, with additional optional items that could bring the total to about $40.5 million if funds are available. They noted that prior years have sometimes produced excess funds, which are redirected according to budget language rather than automatically flowing back through SEEK. They also reviewed the main drivers of the estimate, including property assessments, average daily attendance, free lunch counts, exceptional child counts, home hospital, and limited English proficiency, and said property assessments have been especially volatile while exceptional child counts and ELL populations are difficult to predict. Members asked about why the estimate missed on some categories, especially special education and ELL, and whether district-level changes were being monitored closely enough. The presenters said KDE does monitor special education counts and will review larger districts and districts with unusual growth, and they acknowledged that exceptional child growth has been hard to forecast. Representative Bojanowski asked about the Cloverport virtual school, and staff said its growth was much larger than projected and accounted for a significant portion of the shortfall. Members also discussed the impact of property value growth, population shifts, illness, and legislative changes on SEEK projections. No vote or formal action was taken, and the meeting ended after questions and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:53.240> processes<00:04:54.000> that<00:04:54.320> that and budgeting
• processes that that and budgeting processes that that Commonwealth<00:04:55.039> and<00:04:55.120
• processes calendars.
• processes calendars.
• request AG budget regarding budget request AG budget request<00:15:50.880> or<00:15:51.440>

Keywords: Meeting start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:12 Discussion on 2025 Regular Session Proposals 00:01:00 Discussion for Future Meetings 00:18:25, 958, all

Summary: The Investments in IT Improvements and Modernization Projects Oversight Board met for its first meeting, approved the minutes from November 13, 2024, and then discussed BR 355, a bill draft intended to revise and clarify the board’s governing statute based on its first year of experience. The draft would rename the body as the Information Technology Oversight Committee, add or refine definitions for cybersecurity projects/systems and legacy projects/systems, move the annual submission deadline earlier, and require a six-year outline and funding-source information for transition planning. Members and staff said the bill was largely a codification of current practice, with no major controversy. State Budget Director John Hicks and CIO Jim Baird offered technical comments and suggested several drafting changes: using “system” instead of “project” for legacy and cybersecurity references, adjusting the first reporting deadline to give agencies more time if the bill becomes law in March, and clarifying that the statute should ask agencies for estimated expenditures and funding sources rather than implying an electronic link to the budget request. They also suggested that the linkage to the budget process could be handled through budget instructions rather than statute. Members discussed whether the six-year outline should be biennial and agreed that the April timing fit the capital planning process. After the discussion, the board agreed in principle to revise the draft along those lines, including changing the terminology, making the six-year outline biennial, and refining the budget-related language. The board also discussed future meeting dates and agreed to meet on Fridays upon adjournment, with February and March meetings to be scheduled later. The meeting ended with a motion and second to adjourn, which passed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Coming up here and visiting the team, because sitting at home, we were doing the budget process like
• I truly think that this is an amazing, incredibly different type of process from the budgeting that I've
• That this is an amazing, incredibly different type of process from the budgeting that I've gone through
• And thank you for everything you did in this process to get this budget to where it is today. Mr.
• Thank you for your leadership in making sure that the Florida Senate got the budget process as good as

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But is it used ahead of the budgeting process? Is it used to allocate that out?
• But is it used ahead of the budgeting process to inform the budgeting process, or is it only after the
• Of course, we didn't audit the actual budget process or anything, but we did talk to them, and correct—what
• I can't speak to what the agency budget request will be. We go through the same processes.
• We go through the same processes as other agencies in terms of submitting a budget to OFM.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The committee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on OSPI’s school apportionment system, which distributes K-12 funding to districts. Auditors said the system and its underlying 2008-era infrastructure are outdated, unstable, inefficient, and at high risk of errors or failure. They also found weak controls over data input, documentation, oversight, and monitoring, with heavy reliance on a small number of staff and vendor knowledge. In limited testing of three districts, the system calculated 2023–24 funding correctly, but auditors identified small discrepancies between state budget inputs and underlying statutory language and said broader system risks remain unresolved. JLARC members asked about the scope of the district testing, whether smaller districts face greater risk, the meaning of the funding discrepancies, and whether the system could support a future change to a simpler per-student funding formula. Auditors said the discrepancies were small but could compound into millions statewide, and that the audit did not evaluate broader policy questions or alternative system owners. They recommended OSPI modernize or replace the system and address current control weaknesses while the new platform is developed. OSPI officials largely agreed that the current platform needs replacement and said a feasibility study completed in 2024 found the system at catastrophic risk of failure. They clarified that the Legislature had approved up to $16 million in the state IT pool for the project, but that funding is released through gated oversight and not all of it had yet been appropriated for the current biennium. OSPI disputed the auditor’s characterization of some rounding and budget-law issues, saying the calculations were consistent with agency rules and legislative inputs, and explained that some manual workarounds are used to handle newer statutory requirements. One member of the public testified in support of modernizing the system and strengthening controls. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, the Criminal and Civil Justice Budget, and steady guidance throughout the budget process.
• The budget includes $3.1 million in additional due process funding for state attorneys and public defenders
• I truly think that this is an amazing, incredibly different type of process from the budgeting that I've
• And thank you for everything you did in this process to get this budget to where it is today. Mr.
• Thank you for your leadership in making sure that the Florida Senate got the budget process as good as

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But is it used ahead of the budgeting process? Is it used to allocate that out.
• But is it used ahead of the budgeting process to inform the budgeting process, or is it only after the
• Of course, we didn't audit the actual budget process or anything, but we did talk to them and, correct
• We go through the same processes. Agency budget requests will be.
• We go through the same processes as other agencies in terms of submitting a budget to OFM.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee subcommittee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on the accuracy and reliability of OSPI’s school apportionment system. Auditors said the system, which calculates and distributes K-12 funding using multiple feeder systems and a core apportionment engine, is outdated, unstable, inefficient, and at high risk of failure. They reported weak controls over data input, documentation, oversight, and staffing, and said OSPI relies heavily on manual workarounds, a few knowledgeable staff, and vendor support. In limited testing of three districts, the auditors found the system calculated funding correctly for the 2023-24 school year, but they identified nine small input discrepancies tied to differences between budget materials and state law, which they said could compound into larger dollar amounts. The auditors recommended replacing or modernizing the system and noted that delays in doing so prolong risk. OSPI largely agreed that the current platform needs replacement and said it has been working toward a new system for years. Agency officials clarified that the Legislature requested a feasibility study in 2022, that the study found the system at risk of catastrophic failure, and that funding for a replacement is now in the state IT pool subject to OCIO/OFM gate reviews. OSPI disputed the audit’s characterization of the rounding and budget-law discrepancies, saying the issue was an agency rule and implementation choice, not an error that caused under- or over-allocation. Officials also said the current system is too old to easily absorb future formula changes, but that the planned replacement should be flexible enough to handle a new funding model if the Legislature adopts one. Committee members asked about the amount and timing of the $16 million project funding, whether smaller districts face greater risk, how many times data is entered, and whether the funding formula should be simplified. Auditors and OSPI both emphasized that formula simplification is a policy question for the Legislature, not the audit. Public testimony came from one online witness, who urged full implementation of the audit recommendations and modernization of the system. The subcommittee took no formal vote and adjourned after the presentations and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Through the budget process.
• Process, it takes a lot of people looking at the budget to ensure that all programs are being considered
• We are also making sure that we're utilizing the budget process to set a strong foundation for the future
• Thanks to our leadership's commitment to increasing member access to the budget process, I was able to
• budget chair, who has employed a lot of creativity and ingenuity in this budget process.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• engage in the budget process.
• engage in the budget process.
• engage in the budget process.
• engage in the budget process.
• engage in the budget process.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Finance Committee met for its first 2025 meeting, with co-chairs Senator Marty and Senator Pratt opening the session and members and staff introducing themselves. No bills were heard; the meeting was focused on orientation and on reviewing the committee’s budget rules for the new biennium. Committee members and staff from both caucuses, Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB), and legislative fiscal offices were introduced before the presentation began. MMB fiscal staff Brian D. and committee fiscal staff explained that budget rules are a nonbinding agreement between MMB and House and Senate fiscal staff that guides how fiscal proposals are tracked and understood. They reviewed the history of the rules, noting that the current document reflects the most substantial update since the rules were first adopted in the early 2000s, and that the 2025 version was reorganized into eight sections after extensive interim work by House, Senate, and MMB staff. The presenters emphasized that the rules are updated annually, are intended to promote consistent fiscal tracking and transparent communication, and are used as guidance for budget bills rather than as law. The presentation highlighted several substantive rule areas: general tracking rules and comparison points for budget documents; appropriation drafting guidance; treatment of transfers, revenues, and inflation; planning estimates and “budget tails”; and rules for extending, canceling, or reappropriating existing appropriations. Staff also described new or revised provisions, including guidance on understanding current-law changes, using Department of Revenue estimates for tax revenue, and treating inflation in the forecast as a general pressure estimate rather than appropriated dollars. The committee was asked to review the updated rules, but no vote or formal action was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• as part of the budgeting process.
• as part of the budgeting process.
• of<00:42:40.079> that the budgeting process and out of that the budgeting process and out
• . funds the budgeting process has to get funds the budgeting process has to get to<00:45:14.720> the
• ><00:45:58.359> of of the budget process there's a group of of the budget process there's a group

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Given the lack of funding, the extension of the mandate would provide, I think, both the budget process
• Given the lack of funding, the extension of the mandate would provide, I think, both the budget process
• Is that list going to be made available to the Legislature before we complete our budget process?
• I appreciate that and look forward to continued conversations through our budget process on that point
• We plan on updating our resource needs for the project in next year's budget process.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review May Revision proposals for several departments and emphasized that no votes would be taken that day. The Legislative Analyst’s Office opened with a warning that the state budget is balanced only through one-time resources and still has structural deficits, recommending that the Legislature avoid new ongoing spending and instead preserve reserves and other solutions. The Judicial Council then presented proposals for language access and interpreter services, appellate court security, a backfill to the state court facilities construction fund, and an extension of the lactation-room mandate; Finance supported the language access item with reporting language and supported keeping the court facilities backfill. Members raised concerns about judicial pay freezes, judge vacancies, and uneven judge allocations across counties, and also asked about the cost and completion of courthouse lactation rooms and remote-hearing infrastructure. The Board of State and Community Corrections items focused on $10 million one-time grants for missing and murdered Indigenous people and for a human trafficking vertical prosecution program. The LAO suggested the Legislature consider whether the Tribal Nations Grant Fund could support the MMIP work, while Finance said it preferred General Fund support and wanted more review before any fund swap. On the human trafficking grant, Finance said the need was clear based on reported cases and California’s share of hotline reports. Members strongly supported MMIP funding and discussed whether ongoing funding would be needed beyond the one-time proposal, while also debating whether BSEC or OES should administer the prosecution grants. The Department of Justice presented antitrust litigation funding, Medi-Cal fraud and elder abuse staffing, organized retail criminal enterprise case completion, and a continuous appropriation for the Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund. The LAO raised concerns about the Unfair Competition Law Fund’s solvency and recommended rejecting that portion unless DOJ could show the fund could support it without General Fund repayment, and it opposed the continuous appropriation in favor of more legislative oversight. Finance said the fund would remain solvent under current projections and defended the continuous appropriation as necessary to pay victims promptly. Members also clarified that the Medi-Cal fraud unit targets providers, not beneficiaries, and asked about delays in restitution payments. A lengthy portion of the hearing covered CDCR’s May Revision package and the Boston Consulting Group cost-savings effort. CDCR described revised savings from workforce optimization, workers’ compensation, and procurement, but members repeatedly expressed frustration that the promised savings had fallen far short of earlier estimates. The LAO recommended deeper cuts to some parole positions, more detail on proposed eliminations and contract changes, and caution about counting unallocated future savings. CDCR also presented population projections showing continued declines and the LAO again urged the administration to close a prison to reduce ongoing costs. The committee also heard proposals on workers’ compensation, Corcoran honor housing, incarcerated firefighter pay, agricultural food purchasing requirements, menopause care, mental health receiver staffing, resource teams, crisis intervention teams, medical classification staffing, and AI note-taking in electronic health records, with the LAO generally recommending limited-term approvals and reporting requirements while Finance defended ongoing funding and said it was open to additional reporting language.

Transcript Highlights:

• the budget process.
• process.
• So also making sure that we're utilizing the budget process to set a strong foundation for the future
• Thanks to our leadership's commitment to increasing member access to the budget process, I was able to
• also to our budget chair who has employed a lot of creativity and ingenuity this budget process.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Lastly, we recommend continuing monthly. the budget process are warranted.
• When projects are going through the PAL process, we typically budget one year of funding for that year
• We're now in the process of crafting the budget bill language for this budget act looking ahead.
• We're now in the process of crafting the budget bill language for this budget act looking ahead.
• the agreements are in place to go along with the budget process.

Summary: The subcommittee heard an informational update on the state’s generative AI implementation and related oversight. Administration officials said several proof-of-concept projects have moved into minimum viable product phases, including work at CDTFA and Caltrans, and that CDPH has a May Revision request for up to $8 million to scale up its healthcare facilities inspections project. The Legislative Analyst’s Office urged the administration to publish a report on lessons learned from each POC and recommended limiting the new generative AI approval process to a pilot through the first two rounds of projects, with continued monthly meetings and stronger legislative oversight. Members pressed for more transparency and questioned why the CDPH request was not included in January; the administration said the cost estimate was not available then and that only one project is seeking additional resources beyond existing departmental budgets. The committee then reviewed a proposed $400 million loan from the Labor and Workforce Development Fund to the General Fund. Finance and the Labor Agency said the fund has grown because civil penalty revenues have risen sharply, and the loan would be repaid in 2029-30 with provisional language allowing earlier repayment if needed. The LAO agreed the fund could support the loan but warned that recent PAGA reforms may reduce future revenues. Public commenters, including labor and community groups, argued the money should instead support labor-law enforcement and outreach programs such as CWOP, and urged rejection of the loan. Members also heard a Department of Industrial Relations request for $19.1 million for phase two of Public Works Information Technology System Enhancements, which officials said will support labor-law enforcement and apprenticeship registration. The department said the project was delayed because a prior procurement did not result in a contract award and that completion is now expected in October 2026. The committee then took up an EDD Next reappropriation technical adjustment to extend UI fund spending authority through June 30, 2026; the LAO said the request was fine but again raised concerns about oversight of the larger modernization effort, which EDD said now totals more than $660 million and is expected to continue through 2029. Finally, the committee discussed DGS’s request for new parking facilities near the May Lee Building and a trailer bill shifting statewide telework policy language from DGS to CalHR while also expanding NDI eligibility for certain CEA employees. The LAO said the telework trailer bill should likely go through the policy committee process instead of budget, and union and employee witnesses strongly opposed it, arguing it would undermine bargaining rights and could be used to narrow telework. In a separate item on the governor’s return-to-office order, administration officials said departments are being directed to move to a four-day in-office expectation starting July 1, 2025, but they had no statewide cost estimate yet because departments are still assessing vacancies, exemptions, and space needs. Members criticized the lack of analysis and said the state should have clearer numbers before moving forward.