Transcript Highlights:

• We can start with that, with the impetus of the need to carry that inside of a special session with the
• Special session to deal with emergency needs. Funding through Fiscal Year 27 is not emergency.
• You know, and I think that we need to look at that process. We're going to have a special session.
• Need? Why wouldn't we just deal with that need separately?
• And so, even though it doesn't need a special session to do this because none of this even takes place

Transcript Highlights:

• The specials comparison. For DDC, the Executive recommends three specials.
• One special for $250,000 for the Office of Special Education Ombudsman for outreach to students with
• But what that means is we need to have flexibility in our budget to do that, and we need to ensure that
• needs to be the last resort.
• I might need to ask the healthcare authority.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Refer to special language.
• Refer to special language.
• Refer to special language.
• Refer to special language.
• That contains special language. Refer to special language.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The committee met to quickly review a long agenda of agency and governor’s letters, with the stated purpose of referring items to the appropriate subcommittees and passing over the rest until next Tuesday. Under agency communications, letters from the Auditor of State, Supreme Court, Secretary of State, and Lieutenant Governor were referred to personnel because they contained positions. Under the governor’s letters, a series of items were referred either to personnel or special language. Personnel referrals included letters involving the Department of Education, Department of Health, DHS divisions and offices, Department of Finance and Administration, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Public Safety. Special language referrals included items for the Department of Finance and Administration disbursing officer, Department of Correction, Department of Shared Administrative Services, Department of Commerce/Workforce Services, Energy and Environment, and other related requests; one education item and one public safety item were referred to both personnel and special language. No substantive debate or votes were described beyond the referral decisions. The chair then announced a busy schedule for the following week, including personnel, JBC, claims, peer review, and special language meetings on Tuesday through Thursday, and adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Refer to special language.
• Refer to special language.
• Refer to special language.
• Refer to special language.
• Refer to special language.

Summary: The committee met briefly to organize a long agenda and stated that its main purpose was to refer letters and requests to the appropriate committees, while passing over items not needing referral until the following Tuesday. No substantive debate on policy issues occurred; the discussion was procedural and focused on routing agency and governor’s letters. Under agency communications, letters from the Auditor of State, Supreme Court, Secretary of State, and Lieutenant Governor were referred to the Personnel Committee because they contained positions. Under the governor’s letters, numerous items were referred either to Personnel or Special Language, including requests involving the Department of Education, Finance and Administration, Health, DHS divisions, Correction, Agriculture, Public Safety, Shared Administrative Services, Commerce/Workforce Services, Energy and Environment, and the Finance Disbursing Officer. Several items contained positions, several contained special language, and some contained both. The meeting concluded with notice of a busy schedule for the following week: Personnel at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday, JBC at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, Claims after JBC on Tuesday, Peer Review after JBC on Wednesday, and Special Language at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday. No votes or substantive actions beyond referrals were recorded, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Refer to special language.
• Refer to special language.
• Refer to special language.
• Refer to special language.
• Refer to special language.

Summary: The committee met briefly to review a long list of agency and governor’s letters and determine which items should be referred to subcommittees. The chair explained that the main purpose of the meeting was referral only; any letters not acted on would be carried over to next Tuesday’s agenda. Under agency communications, letters from the Auditor of State, Supreme Court, Secretary of State, and Lieutenant Governor were referred to personnel because they contained positions. Under the governor’s letters, several items were referred to personnel or special language, including requests involving the Department of Education, Department of Health, multiple DHS divisions, the Department of Correction, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Public Safety, Shared Administrative Services, Workforce Services, Energy and Environment, and the Department of Finance and Administration. No substantive debate or votes were described beyond the referral decisions. The chair then announced a busy schedule for the following week, with personnel, JBC, claims, peer review, and special language meetings set across Tuesday through Thursday, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, and that was also budgeting for the special education audit if we need to proceed with that, so
• You know, a student comes into a classroom with special needs. They're very high.
• You know, a student comes into a classroom with special needs. They're very high.
• You know, a student comes into a classroom with special needs. They're very high.
• You know, a student comes into a classroom with special needs. They're very high.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division II committee heard a Department of Education budget presentation from Commissioner Frank Edelblut and CFO Tammy Valen-cour. The department outlined its organizational structure and emphasized that it functions largely as a flow-through agency for school funding. The commissioner reviewed general fund and Education Trust Fund items, including state aid, dropout prevention, special education, building aid, lease aid, charter schools, Education Freedom Accounts, and the district adequacy calculation. He also highlighted the public school infrastructure fund, saying the state has invested well over $50 million in school safety since 2018 for measures such as access controls, locks, and window film, and argued that safety spending should be ongoing rather than reactive. Members asked about the variability in the school infrastructure line, special education aid, and the Discovery Education learning platform. Edelblut explained that some safety funding had come from one-time surplus appropriations rather than the agency line, and said special education aid was underappropriated because districts submitted more invoices than expected; he said the governor added $16 million to address the shortfall. He also described CTE renovation funding, noting four projects were initially proposed but only Jaffrey and Milford were still moving forward, with local votes required and the state covering 75% of costs. He said Milford’s project was omitted from the governor’s budget by oversight. The department also reviewed enrollment trends, noting public school enrollment has fallen from about 230,000 students in 2002 to about 185,000 today. Edelblut clarified that charter students are not eligible for Education Freedom Accounts, while EFA students attending non-public schools are counted as EFA students. He described several one-time surplus-funded initiatives, including Student Clearinghouse, MTSSB work, civics curriculum development, computer science education, and adult education. He also discussed a $4 million CTE tuition and transportation grant, saying it was kept as a competitive grant rather than a formula grant to avoid creating an ongoing maintenance-of-effort commitment that could jeopardize federal Perkins funding. In the final portion, Edelblut identified prioritized needs in the department’s budget, especially funding for a state administrator for assessment to support the legislatively required civics assessment, and additional support for the Discovery Education platform. He said every school in the state is using the platform and cited more than 1.5 million educator engagements, while a member raised concerns about mixed reviews and uneven district awareness of the program. No votes or formal actions were taken during the presentation and question period.

Transcript Highlights:

• Aid uh special expenditures on special Aid uh special ed<00:43:01.680> exceed<00:43:02.200>
• The appropriate special education services that they need, to be successful in schools.
• Chair, and I don't think anybody on this committee is even suggesting that children that need special
• <01:05:34.240> special<01:05:34.599> education children that need special education
• children that need special education services<01:05:35.599> shouldn't<01:05:35.920> get

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• about how to teach students with special needs.
• . the state's needs.
• And then on page 14 Endorsement area hours for people who want to specialize in special ed.
• And these are questions that we need to not just ask again, but this needs to go to the deans.
• We need to be paid well in my opinion. So we need to have good FTEs for those people.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we recognize that we need to start looking at the differentiated aid and the special education aid
• But we recognize that we need to start looking at the differentiated aid and the special education aid
• But we recognize that we need to start looking at the differentiated aid and the special education aid
• But we recognize that we need to start looking at the differentiated aid and the special education aid
• , but we recognize that we need to start looking at the differentiated aid and the special education

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in executive session on HB 563, which revises the adequacy education grant formula, including differentiated aid for free and reduced-price meals, English language learners, and special education, and also restores fiscal capacity disparity aid. Members explained that for FY 26 the formula largely stays the same with the usual 2% increases, while FY 27 would raise the base cost and several aid categories, including a substantial increase in special education differentiated aid. Supporters said the bill recognizes higher special education costs and separates fiscal capacity disparity from the extraordinary needs grant, which they argued better targets property-poor communities. A major point of discussion was the fiscal capacity disparity aid component. Some members asked for more detail on how the formula affected individual towns and how much money was being allocated. The sponsors said the spreadsheet showed the impacts and estimated the fiscal capacity disparity portion at about $13.3 million, benefiting roughly 40 communities, with Manchester the only municipality expected to receive less under the new approach. They also said the change partially rebalances money that had shifted heavily toward larger cities under the extraordinary needs grant and that the special education increase is new money, not taken from the hold harmless or extraordinary needs funds. Several members supported the amendment as a good-faith step and a bipartisan compromise, while others expressed frustration that they did not have enough time or information to review the spreadsheets in detail before voting. After extended debate, the committee recessed for lunch to allow the spreadsheet to be distributed and reviewed, with the understanding that the bill would continue later in the day and then move on to the other bills on the docket.

Transcript Highlights:

• Whether it be communications about special education documents needed at DOE, timeliness with audit submissions
• 14.720> documents<01:02:15.280> needed about special education documents needed about special
• needs? needs?
• So, I'm glad we can roll that underneath special education aid and we need to be talking to policy.
• So, I'm glad we can roll that underneath special education aid and we need to be talking to policy.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This needs to be paid back. It needs to be... ...checking account, basically.
• This needs to be paid back. It needs to be paid back to the people that paid it in. No tax on tips.
• We're getting close to where we need to be. ...disingenuous.
• This is much-needed money for our schools to help them out.
• Without objection, the special session is adjourned.

Keywords: 970, all

Transcript Highlights:

• need a little<00:04:40.800> help.
• session in the next few not a special session in the next few not the<00:06:52.960> special<00
• Um but we just need a details of this.
• think uh Republican votes may be needed think uh Republican votes may be needed and<00:09:40.399
• Technically, you don't need a tax bill, but you do need revenue in there that is critical to the overall

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Legislative leaders said budget negotiations were still underway in working groups, with public meetings planned or already held for several committees, including Environment, Education, Transportation, and Jobs. They said the remaining major issues were health and human services and taxes, while bonding was also still unresolved. One speaker said Republicans were not engaging on bonding, though another later said House Republicans were interested and that the target remained $700 million. The governor was expected to review completed bills and then call a special session, likely early to mid next week if the remaining work could be finished in time. A major point of discussion was whether coverage for undocumented immigrants would move separately from the larger health bill. One participant said the undocumented healthcare measure would travel separately, while another said that had not yet been fully decided because the health package was not locked down. The speakers also discussed layoff notices tied to the budget delay, saying nurses and some staff at MState and Minstate would receive notices first, with the rest following on June 9, and that leaders were trying to minimize stress by getting a date for the special session and final bill drafts posted quickly. The speakers emphasized that the negotiations were still active and not broken down, though they acknowledged a few sticking points and said some work had been slowed by the need to bring together House and Senate dynamics in a closely divided legislature. They said the process remained transparent because the same committee chairs and working groups were still involved, and that public meetings were being requested for Senate chairs. One speaker also noted that Senator Mark Johnson had been invited into the talks earlier but was not currently in the meetings because he had not signed the deal being implemented.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is why this measure is needed.
• When we talk about special meetings, the special meetings are called within... these relationships and
• When we talk about special meetings, the special meetings are called within ...process.
• These stops need to be built as they're planned to be built, and we do not need to walk away from federal
• These stops need to be built as they're planned to be built, and we do not need to walk away from federal

Summary: The Senate Committee on Local Government met to hear a long agenda of local government, housing, labor, and transparency bills. The committee first adopted the consent calendar for SB 1187 and SB 1388, then heard SB 983, which would authorize the Port of San Diego to use job order contracting for repairs and repetitive maintenance work. Supporters said the bill would speed emergency and small repairs and reduce costs, while opponents raised concerns about construction definitions and project labor agreement language. The bill was ultimately moved forward on a 2-2 vote after discussion of amendments and labor negotiations, and later the committee’s final roll call showed it passing out on a 5-2 vote. The committee also heard SB 1256, aimed at limiting duplicative litigation over a San Diego County housing project, and SB 992, which would make permanent and expand a small special-district audit flexibility by raising the revenue threshold from $150,000 to $250,000. SB 1256 drew support from the author and project counsel, who argued the project had already been litigated and was delaying needed housing, while opponents said the bill would interfere with wildfire and subdivision-map review. SB 992 had support from county auditors and special districts, with no opposition, and was approved 5-0. SB 1115, addressing governance failures at the Tulare County Public Cemetery District by allowing county supervisors to remove an individual trustee for cause, also passed unanimously after testimony describing serious dysfunction and opposition from the California Special Districts Association. The committee then took up SB 1193, which would impose transparency and approval requirements on Alameda County discretionary funding to nonprofits and other entities. The author and supporters described the bill as a response to grand jury findings and alleged conflicts of interest, while Alameda County argued its current process is already transparent and that the bill would add burdens and could harm services. After amendments and discussion, the bill passed 5-0. SB 1383, a density bonus law bill clarifying that local labor standards cannot be waived through density bonus concessions, was supported by labor groups and moved forward despite no opposition, with the final roll call showing it passing out 5-1. SB 1361, intended to prevent local governments from undermining transit projects because of SB 79 density concerns, also passed after support from L.A. Metro and labor and no formal opposition, with the final vote recorded as 5-2. The committee later resumed to hear SB 1272, the CASH Act, which would limit certain sanctions on homeowners for prior unpermitted work by previous owners; the transcript cuts off before that bill’s full testimony and vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, if a student is identified as<00:19:12.799> special<00:19:13.120> needs,<00:19:14.000
• needs, then they get um the as special needs, then they get um the $2,300<00:19:16.640> goes<
• So there's no difference unless a child is identified needing special education and then you have to
• >> unless a child is identified needing >> unless a child is identified needing special
• That is also because they do have a center of excellence for intensive-need students in special education

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the October 15 minutes and a brief discussion of the committee’s report process, including the likelihood of a minority report and a deadline of November 1 for any separate report. Members then heard from Jod Adams of the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools, who gave an overview of charter schools in the state: there are 37 charter schools, with 6,034 students last year, and schools are formed by certified teachers, parents, or nonprofit organizations. She said charter schools receive about $9,180 per pupil in adequacy aid and charter school grant funding, must fundraise for additional money, and are governed by their own boards under their charters and bylaws. Members asked about admissions, governance, transportation, and special education. Adams said charter schools are open enrollment, not geographically based, and may use lotteries when applications exceed available seats. She explained that districts and charter schools coordinate on special education and busing, with the sending district responsible for special education coordination and certain transportation obligations depending on where the student lives and attends. She also said charter schools are public schools, not selective, and that each school’s board operates independently of the local district school board, though some schools may have special arrangements. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on funding and statutory obligations. Adams and members discussed how special education aid follows the student, while charter schools do not receive some district-level aid such as catastrophic aid; free and reduced lunch funding and Title funds can go to charter schools. Members also raised concerns that some state laws and administrative rules do not clearly specify whether they apply to charter schools, creating confusion and, in some cases, causing districts to perform services such as dyslexia screening for charter students without additional funding. Adams agreed that clearer statutory language would help and noted that charter schools are subject to many state requirements, including testing and reporting, even though not every public-school rule applies to them.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to take action now.
• We need to do it across the nation.
• And we do need to—I am in total support of SB 280 for the election that needs to take place now, because
• I just need to know, with this bill, the amount that is appropriated, I just need to know, with this
• Vital for families like mine, communities like mine, any way that we can help special needs communities

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on August 20, 2025, and considered a large number of bills, with most of the discussion centered on election redistricting and several health, labor, environmental, and government-operations measures. The first major item was ACA 8, a constitutional amendment tied to a proposed November special election and temporary mid-decade congressional redistricting in response to partisan redistricting efforts in other states. Supporters, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, a 2020 redistricting commissioner, labor groups, and allies of the measure, argued it was necessary to defend democracy, protect representation, and respond to federal actions affecting California. Opponents, including Assemblymember Tom Lackey reading a statement for Assemblymember Gallagher and Assemblymember Dixon, argued the measure would undermine the independent redistricting commission, amount to a partisan power grab, and cost taxpayers roughly $230 million. Committee members also focused heavily on fiscal questions, including litigation costs and county election funding, and Department of Finance staff said counties would be made whole and funding would be advanced. The committee ultimately voted the measure out on a B roll call. The committee then heard SB 280, the implementing bill for the special election and related redistricting process. Supporters repeated the argument that California needed to respond to Texas and other states, while opponents again emphasized the cost, the strain on county budgets, and the state’s broader fiscal pressures. Department of Finance witnesses said the election funding would be provided in advance and that the state would work with counties and the Secretary of State. The bill was moved out on a roll call after extended debate. The committee also advanced several other bills, including SB 283 on battery storage safety standards, SB 470 extending remote participation and open-meeting flexibility for state boards and commissions, SB 697 modernizing stream adjudication procedures, SB 513 requiring more accessible employee training records, SB 30 restricting transfer of older diesel locomotives, SB 841 and SB 81 creating protections for vulnerable facilities and health care spaces from immigration enforcement, SB 358 revising traffic impact fee standards, and SB 630 streamlining state parks land acquisitions. Other measures discussed included SB 62 expanding health coverage benefits, SB 68 requiring restaurant allergen disclosures, and the committee heard both support and opposition on SB 68 from the California Restaurant Association and consumer advocates. Supporters of the health and immigrant-protection bills emphasized patient safety, reproductive health, immigrant rights, and access to care, while opponents on the restaurant bill warned of added mandates and litigation risk for small businesses. Across the hearing, committee members frequently returned to fiscal impacts, county implementation burdens, and whether the bills would save money, cost money, or shift costs to local governments. Several bills were reported out of committee, often on A or B roll calls, with some members not voting on particular measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:26:39.919> special cuts into specialation special cuts into specialation special education
• needs.
• needs.
• The program will also special needs.
• I low-income students, students with special education needs, etc. >> Representative Green, I'm sorry

Bills: HF3490, HF4040

Keywords: education finance, scholarship-granting organizations, charitable purposes, student scholarships, nonpublic schools, K-12 education, tax credit, advance payment, Minnesota tax law, child education expenses, taxpayer assistance, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• transferred to the special revenue fund. transferred to the special revenue fund.
• education expenses for the special education paras to special education aid.
• education expenses for the special education paras to special education aid.
• education expenses for the special education paras to special education aid.
• that, we need to do one-on-one funding. that, we need to do one-on-one funding.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Approximately 340,000 of these children have special needs.
• Children with special needs are not going away, so the need for Pappas will not go away.
• needs.
• I have 10 hands in my home to care for my children with special needs.
• For the first time, she had access to the specialized services, therapies, and opportunities she needed

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The special legislative commission on the future of Pappas Rehabilitation Hospital for Children held a hybrid public hearing focused on the hospital’s future, admissions, staffing, infrastructure, and whether the facility should be preserved, expanded, or reimagined. Opening remarks from legislators, commissioners, parents, and union representatives emphasized that Pappas provides a unique combination of medical, rehabilitative, educational, and residential services for children with complex needs, and several speakers argued that the hospital is effectively being depopulated through reduced admissions and ongoing discharges despite public assurances that it remains open. Multiple speakers urged the commission to extend its authorization and continue its work before any closure or major change can occur. Testimony from labor leaders, including AFSCME, SEIU Local 509, and the Massachusetts Nurses Association, described a “silent closure” in practice, with staff reporting confusion about the hospital’s status, declining census numbers, blocked admissions, and uncertainty about the workforce’s future. They called for immediate action to stop admission denials and unnecessary discharges, and some proposed short-term solutions such as temporary modular structures to address infrastructure barriers and allow admissions to resume. Parents and former patients testified that Pappas provided life-changing independence, specialized therapy, and campus-based supports that they said could not be replicated elsewhere, and they criticized alternative placements as inadequate. Commissioner Robert Goldstein of the Department of Public Health said the administration supports keeping Pappas open and funded while the commission works, but he argued that admissions must comply with hospital-level-of-care rules and that the campus’s deteriorating infrastructure limits the kinds of children who can safely be served there. He said the department is continuing admissions for appropriate patients, working to expand outreach and services, and exploring long-term options, including broader statewide models of care. Commissioners pressed him on whether discharge status or lack of a clear discharge plan had been used as a barrier to admission, and requested de-identified data on patients recommended for admission but denied. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• curriculum that all our students need. curriculum that all our students need.
• They're working with our kids with special needs. And there's no... that we have.
• <01:59:40.480> needs.
• <01:59:41.920> And with our kids with special needs.
• And with our kids with special needs.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you're really doing a good job finding students eligible for special ed, it's because they need it
• If you're really doing a good job finding students eligible for special ed, it's because they need it
• <01:49:07.800> it special ed it's because they need it special ed it's because they need it
• Yes, you don't need to have a special...
• War is a horrific thing, but we need to be clear. We need to teach the truth.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Policy Committee opened a hearing on HB 748, which would establish a local education freedom account (EFA) program. The prime sponsor, Rep. Kevin Verville, described the bill as enabling legislation that would let local voters decide whether to create a local EFA program by petition and ballot vote, with a 60% threshold to approve or repeal it. He argued that public education is about funding rather than a specific school building, said the proposal would expand parental choice, and cited Deerfield’s move from a single high school option to multiple tuitioned options as an example of local flexibility. Verville said the local EFA would be funded at twice the state adequacy amount, with the district matching the state portion, while other aid categories such as free and reduced meals, English language learner, and special education aid would not be doubled. He said students using a local EFA would still count in average daily membership, that unspent EFA funds would revert to the district, and that the bill would prohibit double-dipping with other scholarship or EFA programs. He also said special education services would remain under district discretion and that local EFA participants would still take statewide assessments for accountability. Committee members pressed him on several issues, especially special education, transportation, and fairness. Rep. Woodcock and Rep. Murray asked whether districts would still have to provide special education and transportation services if a student used a local EFA; Verville responded that special education would remain in the local district at district discretion, while transportation would generally become the family’s responsibility unless already required in an IEP. Rep. Cornell raised an equity concern about no income eligibility cap, asking whether higher-income families should receive the same public support; Verville replied that New Hampshire does not means-test public education and that the local EFA is a public funding mechanism, not a tuition subsidy that would cover full private-school costs. No vote or committee action was taken in the portion provided.