Transcript Highlights:

• At the UC and CSU level, we found that both systems enroll more transfer students than required under
• And so, for example, UC Santa Barbara required two physics courses, while UC Berkeley did not require
• And then UC San Diego required additional calculus courses that were not required by UC Berkeley, UC
• And then UC San Diego required additional calculus courses that were not required by UC Berkeley, UC
• CSU is also using its budget and enrollment reallocation plan and enrollment growth strategy to align

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Audit

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Just thinking about the ripple a little bit, with the reduction in enrollment and those enrolling having
• I know we talked about 3% decline and then it's down 32% for new enrollment, down 59% from the enrollment
• Requirements.
• requirement.
• requirements.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We found that both systems enroll more transfer students than required under the master plan on a statewide
• And UC San Diego required additional calculus. ...but UC San Diego did not, and UC San Diego required
• And so, for example, UC Santa Barbara required two physics courses, while UC Berkeley did not require
• And then UC San Diego required additional calculus courses that were not required by UC Berkeley, UC
• CSU is also using its budget and enrollment reallocation plan, and enrollment growth strategy, to align

Summary: The committee held an oversight hearing on a state audit examining California’s community college transfer process and whether streamlining it could improve access to bachelor’s degrees. Opening remarks from legislators emphasized that California’s transfer system is central to equity and workforce development, but that only about one in five transfer-intending community college students complete a transfer within four years. Members highlighted disparities by race, region, campus, and major, and pointed to confusion created by differing requirements across the UC, CSU, and community college systems, including limits and inconsistencies in the Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT), TAG, and major-specific prerequisites. State Auditor’s staff said the audit found that while UC and CSU systemwide enroll more transfer students than the Master Plan target, individual campuses and high-demand STEM programs often do not. The audit identified barriers including unclear and varying course requirements, limited counseling and education plans, insufficient counselor staffing at some campuses, and weak equity plans. It also found that many students never even apply because they do not accumulate enough units or cannot navigate the process. The auditor described examples where transfer students with strong preparation were denied at selective campuses and noted that articulation alignment across systems remains limited. Representatives from UC, CSU, and the Community Colleges responded that transfer remains a top priority and described ongoing reforms. UC cited a new public dashboard, data-sharing agreements, new transfer pathways, and an ADT pilot at UCLA, while saying campus-level capacity and program differences limit how much can be standardized from the system office. CSU said it admits more than 90% of eligible transfer applicants, is expanding transfer planning tools and direct outreach, and is implementing SB 640’s Transfer Success Pathway Program. Community Colleges said transfer reform must focus on clearer credit mobility, more consistent articulation, and broader ADT adoption. Members pressed the systems on inconsistent major requirements, the need for better coordination, and whether campuses are fully prioritizing transfer students; no votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• to comply with enrollment limits and geographic enrollment boundary requirements, which includes that
• All approved full-time distance learning programs will be required to comply with enrollment limits and
• geographic enrollment boundary requirements.
• Her brain injuries require repetition. They require her extra support in the classroom.
• On 22, it starts on, excuse me, line 24, where it says, a district shall not require a student to enroll

Bills: HB2 , SB204 , SB241 , HB34

Committee: House House Education

Keywords: general appropriation, budget, Medicaid, education funding, public safety, higher education, research funding, federal funding, New Mexico, appropriation, University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, child care, child care assistance, child care subsidy, early childhood education, early childhood care, daycare, preschool

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 253, as substituted, which would create a framework for full-time virtual/distance learning programs in New Mexico. Sponsors and agency witnesses said the bill is intended to preserve virtual options while adding approval, reporting, and compliance requirements, including definitions for distance learning programs, annual reporting, renewal every three to five years, and a pause on new programs while existing ones are grandfathered for a period. They also said the bill addresses budget concerns by limiting enrollment growth units and excluding distance-learning students from certain funding calculations, including rural population units, to prevent unexpected losses in the state equalization guarantee. Public testimony was sharply divided. Supporters included district superintendents and education officials who said the bill is needed to protect school funding, improve accountability, and gather basic data that the state currently lacks. Opponents included parents, students, teachers, charter-school representatives, and business and advocacy voices who argued virtual education has been lifesaving for medically fragile, bullied, rural, neurodivergent, and working students, and that the bill’s caps, geographic limits, and approval authority would reduce school choice and could eliminate some programs. Several witnesses stressed that virtual charter schools such as Pecos Cyber Academy and New Mexico Connections would not be affected, while others said the bill still reaches too broadly. Committee members raised extensive questions about the 10% enrollment cap, the adjacent-district requirement, the denial-and-appeal process, the treatment of charter schools versus district programs, and the effect on rural or small districts. Witnesses explained that the bill is meant to be temporary, with an interim study in 2026 to develop longer-term policy, but some members said they remained concerned about overreach and unintended consequences. No final vote or action on the bill was shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• And you can really see the interaction with community college enrollment and CSU enrollment in this situation
• Your agenda describes the budget language requiring these plans, but to summarize, plans were required
• for universities with sustained enrollment decline, and the plans were required to include strategies
• and ongoing costs, additional enrollment strategies under consideration, and five-year enrollment projections
• those targets require.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the requirement.
• “That requirement carries forward.
• But there are a number of campuses...” “...on 0.5% enrollment growth.
• Processes for approving programs based on the federal requirements.
• Because we are not enrollment-driven.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And last year, we combined in our efforts increased enrollment growth.
• And last year, we combined in our efforts increased enrollment growth.
• We did give our community college districts enrollment growth.
• And last year, we combined in our efforts increased enrollment growth.
• These safer projects require stable, multi-year funding to ensure consistent funding.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• We are required...
• The employer mandate only requires that coverage is offered, not that employees must actually enroll,
• The employer mandate only requires that coverage is offered, not that employees must actually enroll,
• This determination is a regulatory and programmatic requirement and serves as the gateway to enroll in
• Families may struggle to enroll or stay enrolled even when eligible.

Summary: The subcommittee heard a lengthy Department of Health Care Services presentation on the governor’s Medi-Cal budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds proposal, projected Medi-Cal enrollment declines as redeterminations continue, and several major cost drivers such as managed care growth, Medicare-related costs, pharmacy spending, and changes tied to federal policy. Members focused heavily on the elimination of Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, questioning the likely impact on provider participation and utilization. DHCS said it is completing the required rate reduction/access analysis for CMS, has been holding stakeholder meetings and issuing provider bulletins, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect. The committee also discussed a $50 million savings proposal tied to new hospice utilization management authority and asked about possible effects on emergency dental care and provider participation. The hearing then moved through the November 2025 family health estimate and several county and program administration issues, including CCS, GHPP, and Every Woman Counts. DHCS said family health costs are rising despite slight caseload declines because of higher utilization and medical costs, and members raised concerns about CCS website accessibility, county administrative funding, and the transition of youth aging out of CCS. The department said most CCS beneficiaries are also on Medi-Cal, that counties have long raised funding concerns, and that it had clarified use of maintenance-and-operations dollars to address some county workload issues. Members also asked about Every Woman Counts potentially seeing higher demand as Medi-Cal changes take effect; DHCS said that is possible and that the program has multiple funding sources including General Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on provider taxes and federal changes under H.R. 1, especially the Medi-Cal managed care organization tax and the hospital quality assurance fee. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 restricts new or increased health care-related taxes, phases down allowable tax levels over time, and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, which could sharply reduce the state’s ability to use the MCO tax for Medi-Cal financing. Members asked whether the Legislature could amend Prop. 35 or whether voters would need to act; DHCS said a three-fourths legislative amendment may be possible if it aligns with the measure’s purpose, but the department is still evaluating options. The committee also discussed hospital financing, with DHCS describing recent increases in state-directed payments and the effect of H.R. 1 in capping those payments at Medicare levels, and the LAO noting the tradeoff between preserving provider taxes and maintaining Medi-Cal funding. The subcommittee also reviewed a series of DHCS budget change proposals and trailer bill items, including managed care final-rule implementation, managed care operations, a hospital value strategy, a one-year extension of skilled nursing facility financing, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability/prior authorization requirements. Members repeatedly questioned the use of limited-term versus permanent positions, the overlap among proposals, and the timing of new financing reforms. DHCS said the SNF extension would preserve current workforce standards, sanctions, growth limits, and the SNF quality assurance fee while the department develops a broader 2027-28 redesign. No votes were taken; items were repeatedly held open for later action. Covered California then presented on the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit and the resulting affordability crisis. The agency said Californians will lose about $2.5 billion in premium assistance for 2026, average premiums could nearly double for many enrollees, and as many as 400,000 people could eventually leave marketplace coverage. Open enrollment ended with 1.9 million sign-ups, down 3% from the prior year, with especially steep declines among middle-income consumers and increased movement into bronze plans. Covered California said the state’s $190 million affordability subsidy is helping lower-income enrollees retain coverage, but cannot fully replace the lost federal assistance. Members also asked about the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund, repayment of loans from that fund, the status of federal review of California’s essential health benefits benchmark, and implementation of the new gender-affirming care benefit under AB 144.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Legislature should also require the CSU and low-enrollment campuses to develop turnaround plans in
• based on the compact's requirements.
• And then lastly, to the UC system, I know we talked about enrollment and enrollment increases and really
• compact funding, because we will require those funds to be able to pay for enrollment for the 2026–27
• narrow the system-wide gap between our actual enrollment and the current enrollment target, long-term

Summary: The committee heard the May Revision presentation for the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, with public comment focused heavily on K-12 priorities such as universal school meals, kitchen infrastructure, food service and custodial support, youth leadership grants, Special Olympics funding, English learner support, universal pre-K, literacy investments, and concerns about community college funding shifts. Speakers also urged support for expanded learning, teacher recruitment and training, and maintaining or increasing funding for community colleges and student support programs. Finance and the LAO then reviewed the Proposition 98 outlook. Finance said the May Revision lowers the 2025-26 Prop. 98 guarantee to $114.6 billion, about $4.3 billion below January, due mainly to lower revenue estimates, with smaller effects from attendance and property tax changes. The administration also described rebenching for universal transitional kindergarten and a one-time rebench tied to Los Angeles fire-related property tax losses, along with changes to the Public School System Stabilization Account, deferrals, and updated COLA assumptions. The LAO said the budget relies too much on deferrals and one-time funds, creates a structural shortfall, and should instead align ongoing spending with the guarantee and preserve a reserve buffer. Members questioned the TK rebench and the shift of funding from community colleges to K-12, asking why it was being applied retroactively and how colleges would be held harmless. Finance said the changes align funding with where TK costs are being incurred and that reappropriation funding and other adjustments would offset impacts on community colleges. The LAO argued the historical split formula is outdated and should be abandoned in favor of budgeting around current priorities rather than fixed percentages. Members also raised concerns about draining the rainy day reserve and using deferrals, while the LAO said preserving reserves would better protect against future volatility. The committee then moved to specific K-12 and education proposals. Finance outlined May Revision changes including state operations adjustments for the Department of Education, technical trailer bill changes, a $100 million student teacher stipend program administered by Kern County, and updates to the charter school facility grant program. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposed increases for expanded learning, literacy coaches, and the student teacher stipend as currently structured, while supporting the minimum grant increase for expanded learning. Members expressed support for teacher recruitment efforts but questioned whether one-time funding can sustain ongoing programs and whether the student teacher stipend should be targeted to shortage areas or low-income communities.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hernandez, this work requirement is going to become more of a paperwork requirement.
• requirements.
• requirements.
• enrollment period.
• To share what we know so far, new enrollment, these are people coming in to enroll during our open enrollment

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee held an informational hearing on the impact of federal H.R. 1 and related state budget actions on California’s health care system. Opening remarks framed the federal changes as a major threat to Medi-Cal, Covered California, hospitals, clinics, and the broader safety net, with warnings that millions could lose coverage and that costs would shift to providers, counties, and consumers. Testimony from the California Health Care Foundation and the Legislative Analyst’s Office focused on implementation challenges, the administrative burden of work requirements and more frequent renewals, the loss of federal funding, and the need for California to consider long-term structural changes to Medi-Cal, county safety-net programs, and cost containment. A Covered California enrollee, Chas Franklin, described sharply rising premiums for his family after losing subsidies, illustrating the personal impact of federal policy changes. Committee members raised concerns about whether premium increases were driven by H.R. 1 or insurer pricing, the cost of rebuilding county-based indigent care systems, and the need to account for the cost of inaction. Dr. Hernandez pointed to pre-ACA models such as Healthy San Francisco as examples of coordinated local safety-net care, while also emphasizing the importance of primary care, data interoperability, and the Office of Health Care Affordability in reducing waste and improving access. Department of Health Care Services officials then outlined the state’s implementation plan for H.R. 1, including work requirements, six-month redeterminations, reduced retroactive coverage, cost-sharing, and immigration-related eligibility changes. They said the department would try to automate eligibility checks, expand outreach, and train counties and partners, but estimated up to 2 million Californians could lose coverage over time. Covered California reported that the expiration of enhanced federal premium tax credits and new federal marketplace rules are already raising costs and reducing enrollment, with an estimated 400,000 enrollees at risk of dropping coverage. County, hospital, and safety-net representatives warned that coverage losses will increase uncompensated care and strain local systems, while one coalition proposed a temporary state-funded coverage option as a bridge if full-scope Medi-Cal cannot be maintained. The hearing concluded with a policy analyst urging stakeholder engagement, immigrant protections, and new state revenue options to preserve coverage and offset federal cuts.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are required...
• I have to say. enrolled in Medi-Cal or had an adult in their family enrolled in Medi-Cal at a public
• The employer mandate only requires that coverage is offered, not that employees must actually enroll,
• This determination is a regulatory and programmatic requirement and serves as the gateway to enroll in
• Families may struggle to enroll or stay enrolled even when eligible because these federal provisions

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the Department of Health Care Services’ proposed budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds budget and projected Medi-Cal enrollment decline as redeterminations continue. Members focused heavily on the fiscal and programmatic effects of prior budget solutions and federal changes, especially the elimination of General Fund-supported Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, the hospice utilization-management change, and the impact of reduced caseloads alongside rising health care costs. DHCS said it is still completing required access and rate-reduction analyses for the dental cuts and has been engaging stakeholders, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect on utilization or provider participation. The committee also reviewed the November 2025 Medi-Cal local assistance estimate, which shows higher General Fund spending despite lower enrollment, driven by managed care rate growth, Medicare cost growth, state-only claiming, and federal policy changes. The hearing then turned to provider taxes and federal H.R. 1 constraints, with extensive discussion of the MCO tax, the hospital quality assurance fee, and other health care-related taxes. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 phases down allowable tax levels and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, making the current MCO tax structure and the proposed higher hospital fee levels difficult or impossible to renew as originally designed. Staff and the LAO described the tradeoff between preserving Medi-Cal funding and avoiding higher costs on private providers and consumers. Members asked about options for preserving revenue, including possible amendments to Prop. 35 or returning to voters, and were told the department is still evaluating approaches while federal guidance remains in flux. The committee also reviewed hospital payment increases already implemented through state-directed payments, with DHCS noting that H.R. 1 will force those payments down to Medicare levels over time. Several budget change proposals were discussed and left open, including requests tied to the managed care final rule, managed care operations, hospital value strategy, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability requirements. The committee also heard about a one-year trailer bill extension for skilled nursing facility financing, including continuation of the SNF workforce standards program, the SNF quality assurance fee, and annual rate growth, while the department develops a longer-term financing redesign for 2027-28. Members expressed skepticism about repeated rate reform efforts and questioned whether a one-year extension of the eliminated workforce quality incentive program should be restored during the transition. Finally, Covered California presented its budget and enrollment update, reporting that the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit is expected to reduce affordability significantly, with average premiums roughly doubling for many enrollees and as many as 400,000 Californians potentially losing marketplace coverage over time. The exchange said California’s $190 million subsidy program is helping lower-income enrollees, but not enough to offset the federal loss, and it is also implementing a new gender-affirming care benefit and awaiting federal action on benchmark plan changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• families to provide documentation that they're not enrolled in a public school if they want to enroll
• applicants against the latest enrollment files to verify that the applicant is not enrolled in a public
• The that's why we say in the bill that is that we require parents that is that we require parents to
• Requires a private school share. She discussed academic programs and policies before enrollment.
• We have enrollment conversations.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the requirement, so...
• So that requirement carries forward.
• the women enrolled with schools use that benefit annually.
• On 0.5% enrollment growth.
• Because we are not enrollment-driven.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• we will discuss CSU enrollment trends, future enrollment plans, and I highly anticipate the conversation
• 2024-25 enrollment level.
• I would love to enroll in that major.
• I would love to enroll in that measure.
• So I think that requires some follow-up.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance met to review CSU and State Library budget issues, enrollment trends, the Capital Fellows program, and a Title IX update. Chair David Alvarez opened by stressing that CSU faces serious financial pressure, including a systemwide deficit and proposed cuts that he and several members said were too large and likely to harm access, course offerings, and student services. Public comment focused heavily on the Braille Institute Library, with patrons, staff, veterans, and advocates urging restoration of funding and warning that the proposed cut would severely affect blind and visually impaired Californians across Southern California. Several CSU faculty, staff, and union representatives also opposed the proposed reductions and warned of larger class sizes, fewer sections, and layoffs. On the CSU core operations item, the Department of Finance explained the Governor’s proposal to reduce ongoing General Fund support by about $375 million and defer a 5% base increase, while the LAO said CSU core funding would be roughly flat once tuition and targeted augmentations were considered, but warned that rising costs and prior shortfalls would still force campuses to cut spending. CSU’s Chancellor’s Office said the proposed cut would deepen existing problems, citing prior-year budget gaps, job losses, reduced course sections, and student-service reductions. Members pressed Finance and the LAO on whether cuts could be made more surgically, especially at the Chancellor’s Office or in institutional support rather than in instruction, and the LAO said the Legislature has flexibility to target cuts more specifically. CSU also described ongoing consolidation efforts, including shared services among campuses and the planned Cal Maritime/Cal Poly San Luis Obispo integration, while cautioning that savings are not yet fully known. The committee then discussed CSU enrollment. The LAO recommended holding enrollment targets flat because the budget does not add new funding, while CSU reported strong recent growth, including more California residents, record first-year enrollment, and expanded direct admissions and transfer pathways. Members questioned why some campuses with high demand turn away many applicants while others continue to lose enrollment, and CSU said it is shifting resources from campuses with sustained declines to those with demand, using a 10% below-target threshold. The committee also discussed whether enrollment declines mirror local population trends, how to improve marketing and program alignment, and whether lessons from Cal Poly Humboldt’s conversion could inform other campuses such as Sonoma State. The Capital Fellows item drew a Finance proposal for a salary increase and an LAO counterproposal for a smaller raise plus future COLA language; the committee kept the item open. Finally, CSU reported progress on Title IX compliance, saying it has completed most State Auditor recommendations, expanded civil rights staffing, and increased training, prevention, and case-management efforts, though members asked how proposed budget cuts might affect those services.

Transcript Highlights:

• You can really see the interaction with community college enrollment and CSU enrollment in this situation
• Your agenda describes the budget language requiring these plans, but to summarize, plans were required
• for universities with sustained enrollment decline, and the plans were required to include strategies
• and ongoing costs, additional enrollment strategies under consideration, and five-year enrollment projections
• those targets require.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard updates on higher education issues, beginning with California State University’s turnaround plans for seven campuses with enrollment declines. CSU said overall enrollment is growing systemwide, but some campuses, especially in Northern California, face structural declines tied to demographics and community college pipelines. The plans focus on reengaging stopped-out and adult learners, expanding partnerships and guaranteed admissions, improving retention and student support, and reducing costs through program suspensions, hiring freezes, shared services, and procurement consolidation. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the strategies were reasonable but urged regular legislative updates, and the Department of Finance had no additional comments. Committee members emphasized the need for implementation oversight, written updates, and attention to student outreach, financial aid, and privacy concerns around AI tools used in recruitment. The committee then reviewed the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education’s request for a $10 million General Fund appropriation to repay litigation-related borrowing. Department of Consumer Affairs and bureau staff said the bureau has a long-standing structural deficit, has already cut positions and shifted some costs, and that the General Fund backfill would reduce future fee increases on institutions. The LAO opposed the request, arguing the bureau can cover near-term costs with its existing loan and that litigation costs should remain the responsibility of the regulated entities through fees. Finance supported the one-time backfill as a unique situation that would lower fee increases and avoid passing litigation costs on to schools and students. Members asked about preventing a repeat of the problem, and bureau staff said they are pursuing fee increases through the sunset review and have strengthened internal policies and disability accommodation practices. The subcommittee also heard a broad update on Cal Grant funding and student aid. The California Student Aid Commission, UC, CSU, and the community colleges described Cal Grant as essential to affordability, but the LAO noted spending has grown faster than historical averages and said the state likely lacks capacity for major expansion in the near term. The segments highlighted the importance of state aid in covering tuition and living costs, and raised concerns about federal changes to student loans and Pell Grants, especially the elimination of Grad PLUS for some graduate students and limits on part-time borrowing. Committee members pressed for data on students who are eligible but not served by current Cal Grant rules, including adult learners and students affected by age and merit restrictions, and asked for analysis of phased-in implementation of the Cal Grant Equity Framework. Finance said full implementation would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and that affordability remains part of the state’s multi-year compact with the segments. Finally, the committee began discussion of the Middle Class Scholarship Program. CSAC and the UC and CSU said the program is a key part of affordability and debt reduction, especially after the 2022 reforms that expanded awards to total cost of attendance and improved administration. They warned that cutting funding by more than half would reduce award coverage from 35% to 17.5% of cost of attendance and could affect enrollment and persistence, particularly for middle-income students who do not qualify for other need-based aid. The segments also noted that recent administrative changes have reduced award revisions and campus workload, but that data exchange and award volatility remain challenges.

Transcript Highlights:

• upfront information about what support their child can expect prior to enrollment.
• They required them to put $142 million in reserves.
• This revises provisions in the bill requiring...
• Contractor certification requirements.
• The thinking is to present a required college to show a statewide program.

Bills: SJR85 , SCR29 , SCR38 , SCR42 , SB23 , SB39 , SB209 , SB227 , SB240 , SB330 , SB527 , SB584 , SB618 , SB619 , SB636 , SB663 , SB715 , SB732 , SB758 , SB801 , SB825 , SB826 , SB843 , SB844 , SB847 , SB870 , SB884 , SB912 , SB957 , SB1013 , SB1020 , SB1065 , SB1143 , SB1152 , SB1164 , SB1183 , SB1257 , SB1299 , SB1325 , SB1349 , SB1413 , SB1455 , SB1539 , SB1558 , SB1574 , SB1583 , SB1624 , SB1642 , SB1643 , SB1667 , SB1717 , SB1718 , SB1727 , SB1734 , SB1756 , SB1757 , SB1784 , SB1789 , SB1832 , SB1868 , SB1870 , SB1883 , SB1896 , SB1920 , SB1924 , SB1963 , SB2010 , SB2018 , SB2024 , SB2037 , SB2052 , SB2073 , SB2111 , SB2161 , SB2196 , SB2207 , SB2253 , SB2268 , SB2322 , SB2323 , SB2332 , SB2349 , SB2371 , SB2533 , SB2570 , SB2601 , SB2626 , SB2692 , SB2705 , SB2717 , SB2774 , SB2788 , SB2877 , SB2920 , SB2 , SB260 , SB1786 , SB1 , HJR4 , SJR36 , SJR50 , SJR63 , SJR85 , SJR84 , SCR12 , SCR39 , SCR38 , SCR42 , SCR29 , SCR4 , SCR18 , SCR43 , SCR46 , SB2023 , SB825 , SB2010 , SB1870 , SB62 , SB666 , SB847 , SB284 , SB854 , SB1073 , SB810 , SB1539 , SB1505 , SB583 , SB957 , SB1502 , SB507 , SB1026 , SB1349 , SB1433 , SB1434 , SB1376 , SB1585 , SB1772 , SB2016 , SB1163 , SB619 , SB1122 , SB732 , SB731 , SB397 , SB508 , SB1436 , SB287 , SB261 , SB1882 , SB618 , SB393 , SB1791 , SB826 , SB1257 , SB870 , SB529 , SB209 , SB1883 , SB2024 , SB2429 , SB1999 , SB511 , SB2309 , SB510 , SB1860 , SB2037 , SB1924 , SB2253 , SB2018 , SB2206 , SB1963 , SB1643 , SB1299 , SB841 , SB668 , SB584 , SB1085 , SB2431 , SB1490 , SB1868 , SB2314 , SB434 , SB2046 , SB1667 , SB1727 , SB2127 , SB1975 , SB1760 , SB1734 , SB1335 , SB2246 , SB2439 , SB1624 , SB1244 , SB1468 , SB2717 , SB1612 , SB1262 , SB604 , SB2395 , SB1832 , SB1745 , SB1746 , SB2207 , SB1784 , SB1524 , SB528 , SB437 , SB269 , SB1137 , SB968 , SB636 , SB747 , SB1325 , SB1789 , SB1455 , SB2056 , SB1940 , SB2052 , SB1579 , SB2068 , SB3034 , SB844 , SB1920 , SB1558 , SB1236 , SB1044 , SB884 , SB463 , SB227 , SB240 , SB517 , SB1200 , SB1410 , SB1626 , SB1845 , SB1863 , SB2216 , SB2681 , SB1717 , SB2141 , SB2323 , SB2200 , SB2332 , SB2199 , SB1642 , SB1757 , SB2050 , SB1138 , SB2626 , SB2458 , SB1864 , SB2201 , SB1862 , SB1583 , SB1055 , SB2660 , SB1898 , SB2662 , SB2161 , SB2964 , SB2881 , SB1065 , SB801 , SB2743 , SB2533 , SB1413 , SB2073 , SB3014 , SB3013 , SB2774 , SB2702 , SB2629 , SB2443 , SB2349 , SB2167 , SB2145 , SB2121 , SB758 , SB648 , SB647 , SB512 , SB438 , SB1721 , SB2268 , SB1495 , SB2705 , SB2366 , SB1422 , SB1369 , SB1013 , SB682 , SB2692 , SB2570 , SB2797 , SB2111 , SB1896 , SB1164 , SB1020 , SB663 , SB2371 , SB1152 , SB2196 , SB2383 , SB2581 , SB2798 , SB330 , SB646 , SB843 , SB1998 , SB1418 , SB2788 , SB1169 , SB2873 , SB1754 , SB1534 , SB1718 , SB2779 , SB2004 , SB1143 , SB1756 , SB912 , SB2119 , SB2032 , SB527 , SB1580 , SB1952 , SB2601 , SB2322 , SB2448 , SB1777 , SB1283 , SB407 , SB2392 , SB2076 , SB2786 , SB3031 , SB2877 , SB2876 , SB2284 , SB2225 , SB1540 , SB2920 , SB2929 , SB1395 , SB1972 , SB2540 , SB1183 , SB2742 , SB2595 , SB2217 , SB2117 , SB715 , SB2330 , SB1964 , SB1383 , SB500 , SB1640 , SB39 , SB2001 , SB2080 , SB2722 , SB506 , SB2514 , SB2623 , SB2658 , SB1574 , SB2900 , SB23 , SB2753 , SB2398 , SB401 , SB1241 , SB2927 , SB2173 , SB2538 , SB898 , SB467 , SB1449 , SB2529 , SB1531 , SB2846 , SB2476 , SB2031 , SB986 , SB1181 , SB2075 , SB2154 , SB2864 , HB135 , HB 1109 , SCR48 , SB31 , SB2880 , SB1359 , SB2386 , SB771 , SB2844 , SB2550 , SB1351 , SB1423 , SB1931 , SB2245 , SB2589 , SB2707 , SB2807 , SB2351 , SB410 , SB659 , SB816 , SB2776 , SB2693 , SB2580 , SB1980 , SB1886 , SB1234 , SB739 , SB482 , SB456 , SB127 , SB1666 , SJR85 , SB23 , SB826 , SB844 , SB957 , SB1413 , SB1539 , SB1583 , SB1642 , SB1643 , SB1789 , SB1883 , SB1963 , SB2024 , SB2626 , SB2774 , SB825 , SB1870 , SB2010 , SB240 , SB618 , SB870 , SB1257 , SB1727 , SR424 , SR428 , SCR29 , SCR42 , SCR49 , SB3056 , SB3057 , HB2 , HB20 , HB 120 , HB142 , HB210 , HB215 , HB451 , HB 1022 , HB 1151 , HB1458 , HB1700 , HB2000 , HB3093 , SB3056 , SB3057 , HB2 , HB20 , HB 120 , HB142 , HB210 , HB215 , HB451 , HB 1022 , HB 1151 , HB1458 , HB1700 , HB2000 , HB3093

Keywords: Texas constitutional amendment, property tax relief, school district taxes, ad valorem tax, homestead exemption, residence homestead, elderly homeowners, senior citizens, disabled homeowners, age 65 or older, school finance, tax exemption increase, local school taxes, property tax exemption, homestead tax relief, voter approval, school district revenue, tax rollback, disabled persons exemption, El Paso

Transcript Highlights:

• The COLA required is now 2.87%.
• Are you enrolling?
• buyout and enrollment targets.
• enrollment.
• A new requirement and does not pose a new requirement on providers.

Summary: The committee heard an overview of the May Revision’s Proposition 98 changes for K-12 and community colleges. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, full payment of the prior settle-up, and larger deposits into the school rainy-day fund. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF updates were reasonable, but urged caution about the settle-up approach and recommended using more of the available funding to protect ongoing programs and build budget resilience. Members focused heavily on the size of the proposed $3.9 billion settle-up, the $10.3 billion reserve deposit, declining K-12 enrollment, and how much of the new funding should be ongoing versus one-time. The committee then reviewed the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described the May Revision’s higher SCFF COLA, additional funding for enrollment growth, a student support block grant, apprenticeship adjustments, and continued funding for deferred maintenance, Calbright, Common Cloud, and credit for prior learning. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended prioritizing the statutory COLA increase, noted that more than half of districts are already above current-year growth targets, and said the new adult learner demonstration project should be rejected because districts already have tools to support similar services. Members also discussed a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall, which Finance said was discovered too late for the May Revision and would need to be addressed later. Finally, the committee took up the proposed implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the California Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career to build eligibility and data systems, along with trailer bill changes to set up state approval processes. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, that California lacks the needed infrastructure, and that the state will need emergency regulations, data linkages, and ongoing funding beyond the one-time proposal. The LAO agreed that some initial funding is needed but warned that the amounts and ongoing costs remain uncertain and that the Legislature should carefully draft the trailer bill language. Members asked about timing, other states’ actions, and how the state would ensure the program is ready for students and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Enrolled Act No. 61, being original Senate File 113, an act relating to elections, requiring the
• Senate Enrolled Act No. 61, being original Senate File 113, an act relating to elections, requiring the
• Next enrolled act is Enrolled Act No. 64.
• Next enrolled act is Enrolled Act No. 65.
• Next enrolled act is Enrolled Act No. 66.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There are certain individuals who are required to enroll in managed care.
• managed</c><00:15:06.199><c> care</c> ma enroles are enrolled in managed care ma enroles are enrolled
• </c><00:15:20.839><c> Care</c> are required to enroll in Managed Care are required to enroll in Managed
• uh most um Minnesota care requirements uh most um Minnesota care enroles<00:20:24.600><c> and</c><00
• </c><00:20:43.200><c> plan</c> for each enrol um enroll in their plan for each enrol um enroll in their

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• These are expected to lead to substantial declines in enrollment by limiting eligibility and enrollment
• I am enrolled, and I had to enroll my now seven-month-old in minimum coverage, which only covers the
• I am enrolled, and I had to enroll my now seven-month-old in minimum coverage, which only covers the
• work requirements, the recertification requirements, and some other fundings that we won't get.
• requirement.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Senate and Assembly Health Committees focused on the cost of federal instability for California health coverage, access, and affordability. Opening remarks from members of both houses emphasized that California’s coverage gains under the Affordable Care Act are now threatened by federal policy changes, including the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits, H.R. 1, and new federal regulatory actions. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the risk that low-income, immigrant, and working Californians could lose coverage or be pushed into less comprehensive plans. The first panel reviewed the federal landscape and state response. Don Joyce described the ACA’s coverage expansions and warned that H.R. 1, regulatory changes, and broader federal retrenchment could reduce coverage and weaken meaningful benefits. Covered California Executive Director Jessica Altman said the loss of enhanced premium tax credits is driving major affordability problems, with average monthly premiums projected to rise sharply and enrollment already down, especially among middle-income consumers. HCAI’s Elizabeth Lansberg explained the Office of Health Care Affordability’s role in slowing spending growth, monitoring consolidation, and setting spending targets, including lower targets for high-cost hospitals and new primary care investment goals. Members asked about bronze plans, high-cost hospitals, administrative burdens, provider taxes, and whether federal advisory changes could affect required benefits such as immunizations. The second panel examined population impacts and cost drivers. UC Berkeley Labor Center’s Miranda Dietz said most Californians get coverage through employers, Medi-Cal, or Covered California, and that affordability problems are widespread across all groups. She projected that California could have up to 2 million more uninsured residents by 2030, largely from Medi-Cal losses, and said higher premiums reduce wages and increase medical debt. Christoph Stremakis of the California Health Care Foundation highlighted survey data showing widespread concern about medical bills, skipped care, and medical debt, and argued that a large share of spending is wasted through administrative complexity, inflated prices, and underinvestment in prevention. Committee members pressed the panel on whether California can sustain coverage without new revenue, how cost-growth targets affect workers and families, how medical debt relief programs like Los Angeles County’s could be expanded, and how OCA can address uncompensated care, consolidation, and prior authorization burdens.