Transcript Highlights:

• I really wish that the costs of the budget would be balanced on the budget.
• Thank you so much for all of the work that you're doing to try to restore IHSS in the budget process
• process.
• This includes creating consistent processes for key parts of the program, such as individual budgets
• other budget cut.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the governor’s IHSS budget proposals and then took public testimony from the administration, LAO, county representatives, labor, consumer advocates, and an aging/disability advocacy group. The administration described IHSS as a large Medi-Cal long-term services program serving more than 900,000 recipients and proposed three changes: shifting some growth costs tied to authorized hours per case to counties, eliminating the statewide backup provider system, and aligning IHSS terminations with Medi-Cal terminations. The administration also discussed the earlier CFCO reassessment penalty change for counties and said overdue reassessments had dropped significantly. LAO said the governor’s overall IHSS cost estimates appeared reasonable, but raised concerns about the hours-per-case cost shift, including unclear root causes for growth, limited county control over statewide averages, and uncertainty about the eventual savings. County Welfare Directors Association, SEIU, and consumer/advocacy witnesses opposed the hours cost shift, arguing counties use state tools, the proposal would pressure counties to cut services, and it could harm older adults and people with disabilities by increasing institutionalization and shifting costs elsewhere. The chair and members repeatedly questioned the rationale for the proposal, the lack of a defined baseline, and whether the current assessment tools or MOE structure should instead be revisited. On the backup provider system, the administration said the program is underused and costly to administer relative to service spending, while LAO suggested the Legislature consider whether administrative costs could be reduced instead of eliminating it. County, labor, and consumer witnesses opposed the cut, saying the system is a critical emergency safety net even if utilization is low, especially for rural areas and people with complex needs. Members also asked about data quality, county backup systems, and whether consumers know the program exists. On the Medi-Cal/IHSS alignment proposal, the administration said automation would stop General Fund-only spending when recipients lose Medi-Cal and restore IHSS automatically when Medi-Cal is regained; LAO and others noted the proposal had been rejected before and urged better notices and safeguards. Witnesses warned that automatic termination could create gaps in care and unpaid work for providers, while the department said counties already manually terminate in some cases and that automation is ready if approved. No votes were taken in the excerpt, and the chair indicated the committee would continue with public comment and later items before a hard adjournment time.

Transcript Highlights:

• get the default budget in the process, and if I could add, does this bill actually let the budget committee
• The default budget is presented at the end of our budget process. >> Further questions?
• So then the default budget that's ultimately taken up, you know, as part of the budget process at deliberative
• At its core, House Bill budget process.
• our budget season a um process during our budget season where<03:56:45.600> we<03:56:45.760><

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• BUDGET.
• PROCESS.
• THE BASE BUDGET SERVES AS THE INCREMENTAL BUDGETING APPROACH.
• OF THE TOTAL STATE BASE BUDGET.
• THE PROCESS FOR YOU.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• works, but also for the legislature to determine whether changes in oversight through the budget process
• We have a balanced budget.
• We have a budget bill, we've structured it within the budget, so the repayment is scheduled within our
• We're now in the process of crafting the budget bill language for this budget act looking ahead.
• to make sure that the agreements are in place to go along with the budget process.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• budget.
• Our budget is about six-tenths of a percent of that public safety and judiciary budget.
• budget was $120,000.
• From our perspective and the Governor's budget, we are putting forward funding for the ICPOET process
• There's a process for it.

Bills: HF2432

Keywords: HF2432, judiciary finance bill, public safety finance bill, corrections policy, crime victims, victim services, Minnesota victims of crime account, court fees, marriage license fee, financial crimes, fraud investigations, insurance fraud, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, BCA, Commerce Fraud Bureau, wage theft, automobile theft prevention, nonprofit security grants, 911 funding, POST Board

Transcript Highlights:

• Today is the first of two May Revise hearings so we can continue to take part in the budget process,
• Act process.
• Act process.
• process.
• from the 2023 Budget Act.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee held a May Revision budget hearing on state administration and related issues, hearing presentations from multiple departments and agencies. Early items included the Public Employment Relations Board on funding for implementation of AB 1 and a reduced request tied to AB 288, the Governor’s Office of Service and Community Engagement on a technical College Corps adjustment, and the Secretary of State on building security upgrades, election security grant matching funds, and payroll system readiness costs. The Department of Consumer Affairs presented a Board of Pharmacy modernization request and a General Fund backfill for the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education; the LAO raised no concerns on the pharmacy item but recommended rejecting the private postsecondary backfill and questioned interest-free loan language. The Employment Development Department outlined several large workload and benefit adjustments, including EDD Next document management funding, UI loan interest, DI/PFL benefit increases, WIOA adjustments, school employee benefits, an EMT training reappropriation, and a technical reversion correction; the LAO flagged the size of the DI/PFL increase and the expansion of the document management scope, while members asked about program impacts and timelines. The California Workforce Development Board presented an April adjustment to reimbursement authority for an interagency agreement with Caltrans, which the LAO said raised no concerns. Public comment on that item and others included support for workforce and apprenticeship initiatives, including the Jails to Jobs proposal and renewal of the Apprenticeship Innovation Fund, though those were not part of the May Revision package. The Department of Industrial Relations then presented several proposals: reclassifying legal positions, continuing modernization of the workers’ compensation EAMS system, Cal/OSHA data modernization, creating a Cal/OSHA emerging technologies unit, reappropriating funds for the California Opportunity Youth Apprenticeship program, and trailer bill changes requiring electronic payment of employer assessments and adjusting the statutory treatment of the workers’ compensation administrative director’s salary. The LAO generally found the IT and salary proposals reasonable but urged close monitoring of the new emerging technologies unit. Committee members, especially Assemblymember Ortega, pressed DIR on long vacancy rates, wage theft claim delays, low collection rates for Cal/OSHA fines, and whether new resources would improve outcomes; DIR said it was pursuing recruitment, classification reviews, and process modernization, while the LAO noted that staffing alone may not explain the delays. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board also sought to make permanent a 2024 change to the 60-day reconsideration clock, saying it had reduced backlog and interim orders; the LAO had no concerns. Finally, the Department of Human Resources presented a statewide Employee Assistance Program contract consolidation that would lower costs compared with renewing separate contracts and requested one program manager position to oversee the contract and first responder services; the hearing continued with Finance’s response after the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're having with the budget.
• And so we do look forward to continuing this conversation as we go through the budget process.
• The January budget proposed savings of $86 million associated with automating the process of terminating
• process as well.
• So we'll be waiving items number 18... ...the budget process as well.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major topic was child care and early education, where the Department of Social Services and Department of Finance outlined proposed changes to absorb federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue reductions, shift some funding between child care programs, end funding for prospective pay implementation now that the federal requirement has been rescinded, adjust the alternative payment administration structure, and fund child care infrastructure grants and a Low-Income Investment Fund contract closeout. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the budget makes progress on the structural deficit but recommended maintaining the administration’s solution level, making reserve deposits, and avoiding new ongoing commitments; it also raised concerns about shifting reductions to the California Alternative Payment Program and about the proposed administrative-rate change. Committee members strongly criticized the proposed loss of child care slots and said they would oppose eliminating those slots, while also expressing support for child care as essential infrastructure. The committee then reviewed California State Preschool Program proposals. Finance and CDE described reductions to the preschool COLA from 2.41% to 2.01%, removal of prospective pay funding, and increases for the QRIS block grant, audit support, and rate reform implementation. Trailer bill language would codify age-based rate categories, inclusion-rate documentation, family fee collection rules, portability, and excused absences. CDE supported the QRIS increase and some attendance and family-fee changes, but warned that aligning three- and four-year-old rates could reduce support for three-year-olds and that the budget does not fully cover enrollment growth. Members also questioned whether the preschool and child care slot reductions should be reallocated rather than terminated, and the administration said the reductions were intended to reflect current utilization and avoid harm to currently enrolled families. The hearing then moved to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS said the May Revision includes a one-time CalFood augmentation, funding to cover federal SNAP administrative cost-share pressures, and additional staffing and technical assistance to implement HR 1 changes, including the able-bodied adults without dependents time limit and new non-citizen eligibility rules. The department estimated HR 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people, with roughly 806,000 adults potentially subject to the time limit and about 34,000 non-citizens expected to lose eligibility once fully implemented. Members pressed for stronger harm mitigation, including a $98 million backfill to protect families from losing food benefits, and raised concerns about county workload and the “chilling effect” on immigrant participation. The final portion of the transcript began the IHSS presentation, noting a revised budget of $33.7 billion total funds and $12.8 billion General Fund, with proposed reductions tied to Medi-Cal asset-limit changes and other federal conformity items.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, later in my presentation, I talk about our budgeting process, and departments have to submit their
• For VR, the budget process occurs at both the state legislative level and the agency departmental level
• In addition to our executive budget process, our agency also has a formal process for internal departmental
• My question is, how does the agency evaluate whether the budgeting process improves fiscal discipline
• During the budget process, I also reserve budget in a contingency account to cover any unexpected items

Keywords: 977, all

Summary: The committee met to receive a detailed financial operations presentation from the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agency, with staff walking members through funding sources, budgeting, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and grants management. Sabrina Walker explained VR’s blended funding structure, including federal grants, state appropriations, program income, and interagency contracts, and emphasized that state funds are essential to meeting the federal match and maintenance-of-effort requirements. Members asked repeatedly about transparency, audit controls, and the risk that state cuts could reduce federal drawdowns; staff responded that all reports reconcile back to the SCEIS accounting system, are subject to state audits and internal reviews, and that even modest state reductions could significantly reduce total available funding. The committee also discussed pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities, with staff confirming services are offered through school districts, charters, and private schools, and that contracts are monitored for performance and compliance. The presentation then shifted to budgeting and internal controls. Walker described a zero-based departmental budgeting process, monthly monitoring reports, contingency reserves for unexpected expenses, and a formal annual cycle that culminates in board approval. Members asked about facilities tracking, culture, and how the agency maintains accountability; staff said facilities staff inspect buildings and equipment, supervisors justify line-item requests, and the process has become smoother over time as departments learned the system. Cynthia Johnson followed with an accounts receivable overview, describing invoicing, receipting, aging, customer verification, year-end reporting, and the use of cross-training, shared email inboxes, and spreadsheets as checks and balances. She also explained work training center billing, interdepartmental transfers, and the revolving fund used to issue consumer checks more quickly than standard vendor payments. Olivia Perez presented accounts payable operations, including invoice processing through SCEIS and OnBase, the three-way match, travel reimbursements, revolving fund checks, State Treasury Office interactions, and handling of reversals, rejections, and levy notices. She reported that AP processed 67,723 SCEIS payments, 13,670 case management system invoices, 3,379 travel reimbursements, and 15,693 revolving fund checks in fiscal year 2025, with only 70 payment rejections. The final portion of the meeting covered Grants and Funds Management, where Walker explained federal reporting, drawdowns, payroll allocation, asset tracking, lease and IT contract reviews, cost allocation, and closing packages. She noted upcoming system changes such as S/4HANA, Workiva, and SC Pro, but said the agency is receiving training and feedback opportunities. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the presentation portion beyond approval of the prior minutes and a brief recess.

Transcript Highlights:

• process.
• And warnings very much informed this budget process.
• We also have some related policy bills, which will be adopted outside of the budget process.
• Again, with that, with everybody here, looking forward to getting the budget process done as we move
• Again, with that, with everybody here, looking forward to getting the budget process done as we move

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the final three-party agreement for the 2026-27 state budget and 19 implementing bills, including two budget bill juniors and 17 trailer bills. Committee leadership and administration officials described the budget as a balanced plan that reduces out-year structural deficits, maintains large reserves, and makes major investments in health care, education, housing, child care, public safety, and other core services while also responding to expected federal cuts and fiscal uncertainty. The Department of Finance outlined the package’s major components, including Medi-Cal adjustments, education funding increases, higher education changes, child care and human services updates, housing and homelessness funding, energy and transportation provisions, and tax and general government changes. Members asked questions about several provisions, including CSU enrollment targets and turnaround plans, the Prop. 98 settle-up mechanism, the plastics market development payment program, housing accountability measures, NextGen 9-1-1 implementation, and veteran services. Staff and administration witnesses explained that the higher education language is intended to improve campus-by-campus reporting and oversight, that Prop. 98 settle-up would be finalized later through the statutory certification process, and that NextGen 9-1-1 now includes one-time funding, quarterly reporting, an independent technical review, and a state audit. Members also discussed the HAP homelessness funding increase to $900 million and the balance between accountability and timely distribution of funds. The most extended exchange centered on comparisons between funding for veterans and Medi-Cal/immigrant health coverage. Republican members argued the budget spends far more on undocumented immigrant services than on veterans, while Democratic members and Finance staff responded that the comparison was misleading because many veterans’ services are federally funded and the state budget also includes dedicated veteran support. The chair and other members emphasized that the budget reflects difficult tradeoffs and that the package protects vulnerable populations, preserves health care access, and advances affordability. No final vote was described in the excerpt, but members indicated support for the overall package and said they would support it on the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• We recognize that the governor's January budget is just the start of the process.
• So, as we tailor this proposal with the relevant budget subs in the budgetary process, definitely the
• process.
• That said, your agenda also notes that the Congressional budget process is ongoing and has raised the
• And again, these estimates were reassessed and refined as part of the budget development process.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're seeing trends higher than what we budgeted or assumed as part of the Budget Act and as part of
• I'm very much hoping that we can have more specificity about that as we move forward. in our budget process
• process.
• Any changes that we are making would be part of our annual budget process, and those fiscal estimates
• and impacts would be proposed in the Medi-Cal estimate and considered through that state budget process

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And warnings very much informed this budget process.
• And then we also have some related policy bills, which will be adopted outside of the budget process.
• So thank you for. and warnings very much informed this budget process.
• And then we also have some related policy bills, which will be adopted outside of the budget process.
• Again, with that, with everybody here, looking forward to getting the budget process done as we move

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What my question is, will that timeline be on the same timeline as our budget process?
• Are we going to have hearings and so forth at the same time as our budget process?
• I will defer to my colleague for the exact timing and how it aligns with the budget process.
• He said it would be included in this budget process, and it's not.
• You enrich our budget process with your nonpartisan and thoughtful advice, and I hope that as this process

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• process.
• budget.
• budget.
• I'm not familiar with that process, but this AB 182 is not a budget bill.
• Their budget process having on our spending, maybe the rationale is the same, at least partially.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• prior to the next biennial budget process.
• It’s a long, complicated capital budget process, and people aren’t familiar with it.
• That budget gets recommended by the governor and then goes through the legislative process, where it’
• So moving on to the process we go through for the capital budget, we do those facility assessments that
• That somebody told me a year and a half ago during the budget process that they literally uploaded the

Keywords: 928, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Today is the first of two May Revise hearings so we can continue to take part in the budget process,
• So you're budgeting for extra time, so you don't have to come back to this budget. Correct.
• Act process.
• process.
• the 2023 Budget Act.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee 5 on State Administration held a May Revise hearing focused on state administration proposals, with the chair noting no actions would be taken and all items would remain open. The committee heard presentations on a range of budget proposals, including technical adjustments for the Governor’s Office of Service and Community Engagement and the California Workforce Development Board, security and election-related funding for the Secretary of State, modernization and loan-backfill requests for the Department of Consumer Affairs, and multiple Employment Development Department updates covering EDD Next, UI and DI/PFL benefit estimates, workforce funding, and an EMT training reappropriation. Several items drew discussion from the LAO and committee members. The LAO generally supported technical or modernization items such as PERB’s implementation requests, GoServe’s College Corps adjustment, the Secretary of State’s security and HAVA grant items, and the Board of Pharmacy modernization proposal, but raised concerns about the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education’s proposed $10 million General Fund backfill and interest-free loan language. For EDD, the LAO flagged the size of the DI/PFL benefit adjustment and the unusual structure of the document management system proposal within EDD Next, while EDD said the changes reflected higher participation and benefit levels after SB 951 and ongoing modernization needs. The Department of Industrial Relations drew the most extensive questioning. It proposed funding for legal unit reclassifications, EAMS and Cal/OSHA data modernization, a new Cal/OSHA emerging technologies unit, a COYA reappropriation, and trailer bill changes requiring electronic payment of employer assessments and adjusting the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board timeline. Members pressed DIR on high vacancy rates, long wage theft and workers’ compensation backlogs, low collection rates for fines, and the need for clearer workload and outcome measures. DIR said the requests were intended to improve efficiency, support audits and corrective action plans, and better address emerging workplace risks, while the LAO said the workload drivers behind delays remain unclear. The hearing also included support for CalHR’s employee assistance program consolidation and CDT’s proposal to expand “Poppy,” a statewide generative AI assistant for state employees.

Transcript Highlights:

• 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
• As a new legislator, I'm equally troubled that our budget process is increasingly having policy in it
• process.

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:

• I'm very much hoping that we can have more specificity about that as we move forward in our budget process
• Any changes that we are making would be part of our annual budget process, and those fiscal estimates
• and impacts would be proposed in the Medi-Cal estimate and considered through that state budget process
• Any changes that we are making would be part of our annual budget process.
• and impacts would be proposed in the Medi-Cal estimate and considered through that state budget process

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The governor's budget does balance the budget in the budget year plus in the following year, and that's
• During the fiscal year 2025-26 budget process, the DMHC requested and received approval for $1.157 million
• Similar to the previous proposal, during the fiscal year 2025-26 budget process, the DMHC requested and
• So if we could get that information sooner than later as we go through the process to finalize the budget
• The system introduces new volatility into the budget and fiscal forecasting processes.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So each year, the LEAP committee holds a meeting to advance the budget format change process.
• budget structures.
• For other agencies, that process starts when agency personnel… For other agencies, that process starts
• Went through that process. It was a year-long process. We included fiscal staff agencies.
• budgets go into effect.

Keywords: 904, all