Transcript Highlights:

• , town rural, mix urban town rural mix, or entirely urban.
• </c><01:12:30.960><c> town</c> entirely rural Town rural mix urban town entirely rural Town rural mix
• "One thing that's impacting rural areas is, as many of you probably know, that we have an older population
• town-rural.
• Our most rural areas cannot.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So the tax credit as it stands right now is just for rural or...
• And that tax credit is lower than for those rural providers.
• How much money on this rural tax credit did we expend last year? Do you know?
• areas only, and I don't want to harm the rural parts of the state.
• being underserved the way rural is.

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 82, which would extend the Technology Readiness Gross Receipts Tax Credit for 10 years and increase the annual cap from $1 million per lab to $5 million over time. The sponsor and witnesses from Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories said the program helps New Mexico businesses commercialize deep-tech innovations and is unique in the country. Multiple business and economic development representatives testified in support, describing successful projects and job creation. Committee members asked about specific companies, wages, and the program’s impact, but several members raised concerns about the bill’s fiscal effect and the lack of room in the tax package. The committee adopted a substitute that delayed the credit increase by one year, but then voted to table HB 82 by about 5-3. The committee then heard House Bill 142, which would increase the Rural Health Care Practitioner Tax Credit and expand eligibility to underserved urban areas. Supporters, including Think New Mexico and the Greater Albuquerque Chamber, said the credit has not been updated in years and could help recruit more health professionals, especially EMTs. Members questioned whether urban areas should be included, how “underserved” is defined, the size of the current expenditure, and whether the credit actually changes provider behavior. Some members expressed concern that the bill could dilute support for rural areas, while others noted that most New Mexico counties are designated shortage areas. The sponsor moved to table HB 142, and the committee agreed. Finally, the committee took up Senate Bill 58, as amended, which extends the period for metropolitan redevelopment area property tax abatements from seven years to up to 14 years. The sponsor and MRA representatives said the longer period would help projects in blighted areas become financially feasible, especially for housing and redevelopment projects in Albuquerque and other cities. Support came from housing developers, Realtors, chambers of commerce, and economic development groups. Committee members asked about how MRAs are designated, how the abatements work, and why the bill also changed a separate 10-year reference; concerns were raised about the lack of statewide reporting on MRAs. The committee ultimately voted do pass on SB 58 as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Coming from a rural community that has a rural hospital and having had use of the emergency room last
• Louis now, but I actually grew up very rural.
• Louis as opposed to working in a rural community, you understand that rural communities are behind the
• And so there are some less rural places that would be utilizing— ...that there are some less rural places
• Flights go out of more rural communities.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Special Committee on Rural Issues will come to order.
• And I think that there are five rural hospitals that are part of that rural affiliate program.
• The closure of rural hospitals has a significant impact on health care outcomes as well as the local
• Closures destabilize rural economies.
• So 12 of the 21 considered to be rural.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll speak from a rural water standpoint... I'll speak from a rural water standpoint.
• The rural system.
• the rural water bucket?
• water system improve their system because they're like a rural, rural customer.
• Any landowner that gets impacted, we have to mitigate for that impact.

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to receive interim status updates on several water-related studies and Department of Water Resources projects. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and then heard updates on the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study. Staff reported that the committee had already received the testimony contemplated in the study plans, including input from state agencies, local governments, and out-of-state entities, and that any further action would be at the committee’s discretion. The Department of Water Resources then provided project and budget updates on NAWS and the Southwest Pipeline Project. Reese reported NAWS is expected to serve about 81,000 users, with a total projected cost of about $571 million and about $96 million remaining, while the Southwest Pipeline Project is estimated at $1.06 billion total with about $409 million remaining. Members asked about funding sources, capacity needs, and whether current and future construction is being designed for increased demand; department staff said current work is designed for ultimate capacity, but some future components may need redesign based on new requests. The committee also discussed local cost shares, Minot’s role in NAWS funding, and whether the system is adequate for peak demand. A major portion of the meeting focused on the department’s cash management, carryover, and long-term water funding outlook. The department said Resources Trust Fund revenues are tied to oil extraction taxes and are affected by stripper well exemptions and future oil price declines. Members expressed concern about large carryover balances and whether the state is obligating more money than can realistically be spent in a biennium. The department reported about $340.6 million in remaining carryover and said it is trying to reduce that through a two-tier pre-construction/construction process and closer project vetting. The department also summarized the Deloitte studies on regional governance and finance and on cost-share policy. Stakeholders generally favored keeping the current governance structures for NAWS and Southwest with improvements, while Red River stakeholders leaned toward a different option; the department said it will bring an implementation plan back in September. On cost share, Deloitte’s recommendations would reduce some percentages, prioritize projects differently, and use other measures to close a projected long-term funding gap. Members debated affordability, local burden, deferred maintenance, and whether statutory changes may be needed to allow the commission more flexibility in prioritizing and funding projects. No formal votes or final actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving the updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• The tax credit is lower than for those rural providers.
• areas only, and I don't want to harm the rural parts of the state.
• do not see urban being underserved the way rural areas are.
• Certainly, that remains in rural New Mexico.
• Of tabling bills that have a fiscal impact in this committee.

Bills: HB248, HB309, HB332, SB48

Keywords: general obligation bonds, GO bonds, capital projects, bond election, property tax levy, state debt, state finance, capital outlay, senior centers, senior citizen facilities, aging services, long-term services, libraries, library acquisitions, broadband for libraries, higher education, university capital projects, community colleges, tribal schools, special schools

Transcript Highlights:

• "Would it impact?
• You said that this will harm rural care. I'm in District 24, and that's all I am is rural areas.
• states to work on their rural health programs.
• to for these members to be from rural areas and I'm wondering since this is for rural health transformation
• This will go on merit because, for example, I am rural. My whole district is rural.

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The Senate Health and Welfare Committee approved the minutes from February 25 and February 26, 2026, then took up House Bill 928, the Merit-Based Health Care Act. The bill’s sponsors said it would prohibit DEI-related considerations in Medicaid-funded hiring, contracting, and training decisions while preserving compliance with federal law and allowing certain clinical data collection and patient-specific discussions. Committee members questioned how the bill would affect hiring, patient preferences, and medical training, and the sponsors emphasized that it was intended to ensure decisions are based on merit and to add a warning period before penalties are imposed. The committee heard extensive testimony on HB 928. Physicians and physician organizations largely opposed the bill, arguing it would chill evidence-based training, impair use of social determinants of health and implicit bias education, create legal uncertainty, worsen rural workforce shortages, and reduce patient care quality. Supporters argued DEI initiatives undermine merit and that the bill would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding discriminatory practices. After debate, the committee voted to send HB 928 to the 14th order for possible amendment, with Senators Harris and Wintrow recorded as opposed. The committee then heard House Bill 916, which would create a legislative rural transformation oversight committee for federal rural health transformation funds. The sponsor said the committee would provide legislative oversight and stewardship of the funds without appropriating money. Testimony supported the bill as a way to oversee federal dollars, while some senators raised concerns that the committee should require rural representation. A motion to hold HB 916 in committee passed, and the meeting was adjourned with notice of a two-hour meeting scheduled for the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• water system is for a rural individual.
• ... ...would those 272 cities that are served by rural water fall under the cost share of the rural water
• It includes northwest rural water, McKenzie County rural water, Burke, Divide, and R&T.
• It includes northwest rural water, McKinsey County, rural water, Brook, divide, and R&T.
• Any landowner that gets impact, we have to mitigate for that impact.

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to review several interim studies and receive updates from the Department of Water Resources. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and welcomed Representative Hansen to the committee. Staff then reported that the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study had both satisfied the presentation requirements in their study directives, with no further required testimony unless members wanted additional information. The department’s main presentation focused on major water projects and agency operations. Reese Haas and staff updated members on the NAWS project, the Southwest Pipeline Project, Devils Lake outlet operations, low-head dam safety work, floodplain management repository implementation, data center water use, and the 2027 Water Development Plan. Members asked detailed questions about NAWS funding sources, remaining project costs, capacity concerns for All Seasons and other users, and whether current construction is being designed for future demand. The department said NAWS remains on track for substantial completion by October, that remaining NAWS funding will come from a mix of federal, state, and local sources, and that current construction is designed for ultimate capacity while some future components will be adjusted for increased demand. A large portion of the meeting was devoted to the department’s cash management, Resources Trust Fund revenues, carryover balances, and the State Water Commission’s cost-share program. The department reported $340.6 million in carryover remaining, explained that much of it is already obligated to long-term projects, and noted that oil price forecasts and stripper-well exemptions will affect future revenues. Members raised concerns about large carryovers, affordability for local sponsors, and whether the state should continue obligating money multiple bienniums ahead. The department said it is working with the commission on a revised prioritization framework, including high/moderate/low project categories and a two-tier pre-construction/construction approach, to better manage obligations and affordability. The committee also reviewed Deloitte’s finalized studies on regional governance/finance and cost-share policy. Deloitte presented options for Southwest, NAWS, and Red River governance, with stakeholders generally favoring keeping NAWS largely as is, using the current Southwest model with improvements, and pursuing a more structured governance option for Red River. On cost share, the department said Deloitte’s recommended package would cover projected needs through the 2030s, but would require policy changes such as lower percentages for some project types, a 25% replacement-project rate with a cap, and possible bonding or delayed reimbursement strategies. No votes were taken on these policy questions, and the chair indicated the committee would continue the discussion at future basin meetings and the September Water Topics meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• cost-and-market impact review.
• And so we absolutely want to impact premiums over time.
• This may include rural hospitals, critical access hospitals, clinics, including FQHCs, rural health clinics
• Dialysis center is not being available in rural areas.
• What about the funding for the rural areas?

Summary: The hearing began with testimony from Let California Kids Hear and supporters urging action on pediatric hearing aid coverage. Advocates said California has repeatedly failed to enact a workable solution over the past eight years and argued that children need early access to sound to support development. The proposal discussed would limit the coverage mandate to the large-group market, which advocates said would cover roughly 70% to 80% of affected children and avoid the exchange-related cost issue that contributed to prior vetoes. Supporters, including parents, audiologists, and children’s health groups, backed the proposal, and the chair expressed sympathy and support while noting hope for a federal solution for exchange plans. The Department of Finance then gave opening remarks about the state’s structural deficit and the need to balance new investments against projected out-year shortfalls. HCAI followed with a broad overview of its programs, including CalRx insulin and naloxone initiatives, reproductive health grants, the Office of Health Care Affordability, hospital seismic compliance, workforce programs, and the diaper access initiative. Members asked about geographic targeting of workforce funds, the behavioral health workforce pipeline, and the status of the 21st Century Nursing Initiative, which HCAI said had reverted funds. The committee also discussed a proposed transfer of the Data Exchange Framework and Office of the Patient Advocate to HCAI, new reporting on long-term care staffing and health coverage waiting periods, and a Behavioral Health Services Act workforce proposal that would use BHSA funds to support training, stipends, and technical assistance while offsetting $100 million in General Fund spending; members and LAO questioned the offset and asked for more detail, and the item was held open. HCAI also presented the Rural Health Transformation Program, explaining that California received $233.6 million in federal funds for the first year and had to revise its proposal so that $35 million in provider payments would be tied to specific transformative activities rather than general financial relief. The program will fund rural care model redesign, workforce development, and technology/infrastructure improvements, with grants to be rolled out on a tight timeline and subject to CMS approval. Members asked about the size of California’s award, the use of funds for maternity care, labor and delivery access, dialysis, tribal set-asides, and the role of a technical assistance contractor. The department said the program will use supply-and-demand workforce modeling to target funding and that all funds must be obligated by October 30. Finally, the Department of Managed Health Care outlined its budget and two major bill-related proposals: SB 41 on PBM reform and SB 306 on prior authorization transparency. DMHC said SB 41 would require PBM licensure, ban spread pricing, require rebate pass-through, and regulate pharmacy network practices, while SB 306 would require reporting on prior authorization and create a list of services exempt from prior authorization. DMHC requested additional positions and funding to implement both measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, that our task today is to assess the impact... ...that our task today is to assess the impacts
• our rural communities.
• our rural communities.
• It's a rural California bill.
• But we're trying to at least target the most rural, rural counties, rural parts of the state.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , would those 272 cities that are served by rural water fall under the cost share of the rural water
• It includes Northwest Rural Water, McKenzie County Rural Water, Burke, Divide, and R&T.
• It includes Northwest Rural Water, McKenzie County Rural Water, Burke, Divide, and R&T.
• And I'm going, rural flood control.
• Any landowner that gets impacted, we have to mitigate for that impact.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• our rural communities.
• It's a rural California bill.
• rural districts to have them.
• considered very rural.
• But we're trying to at least target the most rural counties, rural parts of the state.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee met at the start of the 2026 session and heard four bills. AB 673 (Jackson) would create a five-year Unaccompanied Youth Support Grant Program for 16- and 17-year-old homeless students who are not in a parent or guardian’s custody, with grants to local education agencies for housing referrals, basic needs, tutoring, employment readiness, and related services. Support came from the Department of Education and an Alameda County Office of Education representative. Members raised questions about funding, reporting burdens on small districts, and coordination with county and nonprofit services, but the bill was approved 6-0 and sent to Human Services as amended. AB 1493 (Avila Farías) would have required school board special elections to be consolidated with the next primary or general election. The author argued this would reduce costs and increase turnout, while opponents including CFT and the California School Boards Association said it would reduce local accountability and preserve too much time for appointed members without voter input. Committee members debated turnout, democracy, costs, and whether the bill should instead address signature thresholds; the author said she was open to further work, but the measure failed on a 2-2 vote and did not advance. AB 68 (Gallagher) would require rural school districts, as defined in the bill, to have at least one school resource officer on campus, with a good-cause exception and a compliance plan if a district cannot meet the requirement. The author and a Glenn County superintendent said rural schools face long response times and need more protection, while CSBA, the Small School Districts Association, and several advocacy groups opposed the mandate, citing local control, costs, and evidence that SROs can increase anxiety and disciplinary actions without improving safety. After a lengthy debate over safety, local control, and funding, the bill passed 5-2 and was sent to Public Safety. AB 296 (Davies), which would create a standalone website for schools to buy and sell used career technical education equipment, drew support from construction industry groups and passed unanimously 8-0 to Appropriations.

Transcript Highlights:

• or are impacting the ability to build not just farmworker housing but rural housing in our community
• The scoring— we're not urban enough to be urban, we're not rural enough to be rural.
• spaces and rural census tracts.
• And while not all rural projects exclusively serve farm workers, many of these developments in rural
• It has a defined rural project type and a set-aside of 10% of funds in any given NOFA cycle for rural

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Like, I guess first off, you know, this is rural. So, like, who is rural? I apologize.
• I mean, I know maybe at first appearance they don't think they're impacting rural parts of the state,
• I would be surprised if we couldn't figure out that they do impact health care and rural parts of the
• not impacting rural Arkansas or it's not impacted by rural Arkansas's health care struggles. ...rural
• Arkansas or it's not impacted by rural Arkansas's health care struggles.

Summary: The committee first heard extensive public testimony from youth and advocates urging stronger restrictions on vaping. Speakers described vaping as a youth-targeted public health problem, citing flavored products, social media marketing, nicotine addiction, brain development concerns, school disruption, and exposure to harmful aerosol. They recommended prohibiting vaping in public indoor spaces and aligning vape rules with smoke-free laws. Committee members praised the speakers and encouraged them to continue building support for future legislation. The main presentation was on Arkansas’s Rural Health Transformation Program, administered through DFA. Secretary Jim Hudson and program director Brad Andi explained that Arkansas received about $209 million in the first year under the federal program, with potential for roughly $1 billion over five years if performance is strong. They emphasized that the program is meant for long-term rural health transformation, not general operating support, debt relief, or new construction. The state’s plan centers on four initiatives: HEART for prevention and community health, PACT for access and provider collaboration, RISE for workforce development, and THRIVE for technology and telehealth. Officials said applications will be handled through upcoming notices of funding opportunity, with a focus on local, shovel-ready projects, regional collaboration, and transparency. Committee members asked how the program would work for hospitals, clinics, nonprofits, schools, faith groups, and urban providers serving rural patients. Officials said eligibility is broad if applicants can show a connection to rural health, and that targeted renovations, mobile units, school-based clinics, farm-to-school or garden projects, EMS equipment, residency expansion, and behavioral health initiatives may fit if they align with the plan. They stressed that the program cannot fund working capital, routine maintenance, or new buildings, but can support repurposing space and collaborative networks. Members also raised concerns about protecting existing rural providers from being displaced, and officials said applications would be reviewed by a state committee with technical assistance and a reimbursement-based process. The committee then reviewed and took no objection to several DHS and Health Department rules. DHS presented a Medicaid/CHIP rule implementing federal requirements for incarcerated youth, including pre- and post-release coverage, care coordination, targeted case management, and screening services, with no public comments received. The Health Department also presented a licensing rule for audiology and speech pathology that implements recent acts and changes the renewal deadline; that rule was likewise reviewed without objection. The meeting adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today we're discussing rural school districts.
• We'll have an educator in a small rural district.
• That was a big challenge for our rural districts.
• This is a big challenge for us in rural areas.
• Opportunities for greater impact.

Summary: The Senate Education Pre-K-12 Committee met to discuss the needs of rural school districts and the role of Florida’s three regional education consortia: the Panhandle Area Education Consortium, Northeast Florida Educational Consortium, and Heartland Educational Consortium. Executive directors and several rural superintendents described the consortia as member-led organizations that provide shared services, professional learning, leadership development, grant support, cooperative purchasing, risk management, IT/cybersecurity help, and back-office assistance that small districts could not afford to provide on their own. They emphasized that rural districts are often very small, have limited staff, and must still meet the same state reporting and compliance requirements as large urban systems. Testimony focused heavily on teacher recruitment and retention, alternative certification, and the difficulty of staffing specialized roles such as CFOs, MIS directors, IT staff, and content-area teachers. Superintendents said many new hires are career changers or alternatively certified teachers who need consortium-supported training, and several argued for more flexibility in funding so districts can raise salaries and compete with neighboring districts and nearby states. Members also asked about the impact of declining enrollment, homeschooling, and voucher-related school choice; superintendents said those trends are reducing FTE and creating budget instability, while also requiring districts to right-size staff and programs. Several speakers described the financial strain on rural districts, including rising insurance costs, transportation costs, and the challenge of forecasting budgets when enrollment changes after the school year begins. One superintendent recounted major hurricane damage and said consortium risk-management support was essential to recovery. Others said the consortia help districts pool resources for property and health insurance, payroll, student data systems, and procurement, and that this shared approach saves money and improves services. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• First off, this is rural—so who is rural? I apologize. I'm for it. I'm Fort Smith.
• I mean, I know maybe at first appearance they don't think they're impacting rural parts of the state,
• I would be surprised if we couldn't figure out that they do impact health care and rural parts of the
• it's not impacting rural Arkansas or it's not impacted by rural Arkansas's health care struggles. ...
• rural Arkansas or it's not impacted by rural Arkansas's health care struggles.

Summary: The committee heard extensive public testimony from youth advocates and public health speakers urging action on vaping. Witnesses said flavored products and social media are driving youth use in Arkansas, described nicotine addiction and health harms, and asked lawmakers to prohibit vaping in public indoor spaces, align vape rules with smoke-free laws, and expand prevention efforts. Committee members thanked the speakers and encouraged them to continue building support for future legislation. The main presentation was an overview of Arkansas’s Rural Health Transformation Program, a five-year federal initiative funded through CMS. State officials said Arkansas received about $209 million for the first year and may receive roughly $1 billion over five years if performance is strong. They emphasized that the program is intended for targeted, locally driven transformation rather than general operating support, debt relief, or new construction, and outlined four initiatives: Heart, PACT, Rise, and Thrive, focused on prevention, access and coordination, workforce development, and technology. Officials said applications would open in the spring, with a reimbursement-based process and a goal of launching all four initiatives by June. Members asked detailed questions about eligibility, rural definitions, school gardens, faith-based and nonprofit partnerships, mobile clinics, EMS, behavioral health, residency slots, and whether urban providers serving rural patients could apply. Officials said the program would favor regional collaboration, could support targeted renovations and expansion of existing programs, and would allow residency growth and some equipment or infrastructure purchases, but not food purchases or permanent new construction. They also said a committee of state health and finance officials would review applications, with heavy technical assistance and an expectation of quick turnaround. The committee also reviewed two DHS/Health Department rules. One implemented Medicaid and CHIP coverage and care coordination for eligible incarcerated youth before and after release, including targeted case management and screening services, with no public comments received. The other updated audiology licensing rules to reflect recent acts expanding scope of practice and changing the renewal deadline. Both rules were reviewed without objection, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• First off, you know, this is rural. So, like, who is rural? I apologize.
• I mean, I know maybe at first appearance they don't think they're impacting rural parts of the state,
• I would be surprised if we couldn't figure out that they do impact health care and rural parts of the
• not impacting rural Arkansas or it's not impacted by rural Arkansas's health care struggles. ...rural
• Arkansas or it's not impacted by rural Arkansas's health care struggles.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The committee heard extensive public testimony from youth advocates and others urging stronger action on vaping in Arkansas. Speakers described high rates of youth vaping, the appeal of flavored products and social media marketing, health risks from nicotine and aerosol exposure, and school disruptions. They recommended prohibiting vaping in public indoor spaces, aligning vape rules with smoke-free laws, and expanding prevention and cessation efforts. Committee members praised the students for testifying and encouraged them to continue building support for future legislation. The main presentation was an overview of Arkansas’s Rural Health Transformation Program, a five-year federal initiative funded through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. DFA officials said Arkansas received about $209 million for the first year and could receive roughly $1 billion over five years if performance remains strong. They emphasized that the program must be transparent, locally driven, and focused on transformation rather than operating support, debt relief, or new construction. They outlined four initiatives—Heart, PACT, Rise, and Thrive—covering prevention and community health, provider collaboration and access, workforce development, and technology/telehealth. Officials said applications would open in early May, with all four initiatives expected to launch by June, and that funds would be awarded through a reimbursement-based process with a quick turnaround. Committee members asked detailed questions about eligibility, allowable uses, timelines, and how the program would affect existing providers. Officials said rural eligibility could include providers in urban areas if they serve rural patients, and that existing programs could expand if they did not supplant current funding. They also said the program could support targeted renovations, mobile units, new residency slots, EMS equipment, and clinically integrated networks, but not working capital, permanent new buildings, or food purchases. Members raised concerns about protecting current rural providers, supporting school gardens and farmers markets, and ensuring nonprofits and faith-based groups could participate. Officials said the state would continue technical assistance and that the application review team would include DFA and health leadership. Later in the meeting, DHS presented a Medicaid and CHIP rule implementing federal requirements for incarcerated youth, including 30-day pre-release and post-release coverage, targeted case management, and screening services. The Department of Health also presented a rule updating audiology licensing to reflect recent acts and changing the renewal deadline from June 30 to October 31. Both rules were reviewed without objection, and the committee adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Commission on the fiscal health of rural schools found that the amount of rural aid that would meet
• Adjusted for inflation, FY25 Rural Aid was roughly only a quarter of what rural schools actually need
• Adjusted for inflation, FY25 Rural Aid was roughly only a quarter of what rural schools actually need
• keep rural districts afloat.
• families living in rural regions.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused primarily on H. 517/S. 314, a bill to provide a sustainable future for rural schools, and H. 697, a bill to require full funding of regional school transportation. Witnesses from rural districts, school committees, superintendents, students, and local officials described chronic underfunding, declining enrollment, high fixed costs, special education and transportation burdens, and the loss of programs, staff, and extracurriculars. Several speakers argued that rural aid should be funded at $60 million annually and made non-discretionary, while others emphasized that transportation reimbursement for regional districts has repeatedly fallen short of the state’s promise and is driving budget crises and overrides. A number of students testified in support of rural aid, describing cuts to classes, counselors, and activities, and the impact on their schools and communities. Committee members also discussed whether transportation policy should be revisited to address underlying cost drivers, including bus bidding practices and whether regional districts should have more flexibility in transportation requirements. The committee also heard H. 515, concerning Hancock Elementary School and a school choice-related exemption from a state requirement that has created a large financial burden for the district. Hancock’s superintendent and Rep. John Barrett explained that a decades-old regulation, recently enforced by DESE, would require Hancock to pay tuition for choice-in students through high school graduation even though the district only serves pre-K through grade 6 and sends its own students elsewhere for middle and high school. They said the rule creates a significant per-student shortfall and has forced Hancock to opt out of school choice. Committee members asked for clarification about how the arrangement works and how the costs fall on Hancock. Additional testimony supported related transportation bills for non-regional districts, especially Plymouth/Carver and North Middlesex, describing high and rising bus costs, special education and McKinney-Vento transportation expenses, and the strain on local budgets. Speakers repeatedly said that state reimbursement has not matched actual costs and that communities are being forced to choose between transportation and classroom services. No votes or final actions were taken in the hearing; the committee simply received testimony and closed the hearing on the bills discussed.

Transcript Highlights:

• The impact and what we're seeing.
• Fresno County serves a lot of rural communities, but providers are also difficult to find in those rural
• Fresno, of course, serves a lot of rural, Fresno County serves a lot of rural communities. rural communities
• Fresno, of course, serves a lot of rural counties, serves a lot of rural communities, but providers are
• and rural and urban communities.

Summary: The Select Committee on Youth Mental Health and Treatment Access held its third hearing to review the state of youth mental health, progress under the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative (CYBHI), and remaining implementation and funding challenges. The chair emphasized that schools are often the main point where education, health care, and social services intersect for students, and that the committee’s goal is to ensure public investments translate into better access and outcomes. The hearing featured testimony from researchers, a youth advocate, state officials, and local practitioners. PPIC researcher Shalini Mostala reported that teen mental health remains a serious concern, with high rates of chronic sadness, hopelessness, and suicidal thoughts, though recent California data show some improvement since the pandemic. She noted persistent disparities by gender, race, and rural status, and said school-based health centers, wellness centers, and community schools are associated with lower suicidal thoughts. Youth advocate Ella Cruz, speaking for NAMI California, described her own mental health struggles and argued that youth voice, peer-to-peer support, and reducing stigma are essential; she also said technology and AI cannot replace trusted adults or trained professionals. Committee members asked about phone use, stigma, cultural barriers, and how to make supports more accessible and relatable to students. Dr. Sohill Sood of the California Health and Human Services Agency said statewide survey data show declining stigma, increased counseling use, and lower suicide ideation among students, and he highlighted CYBHI’s certified wellness coaches, digital tools, awareness campaigns, and the first-in-the-nation fee schedule that allows schools and colleges to bill health plans for behavioral health services. He said the program is growing quickly, with more than 230,000 claims and over $11 million in new revenue to date, while acknowledging that billing systems and coordination are still being built. Trina Frazier of Fresno County described a multi-tiered system of care supported by CYBHI, CalAIM, and other grants, serving thousands of students through school-based services, wellness centers, and mobile therapy units; she said ongoing funding and flexibility are critical. Rachel Kroberniski of El Segundo High School’s James Morehouse Project described a long-running wellness center and peer mentorship model that supports students in multiple languages, and said peer programs help students feel seen, connected, and more willing to seek help. Members broadly praised the flexibility, collaboration, and peer-based approaches described by the witnesses. Questions focused on sustaining funding after one-time grants expire, improving coordination among schools, counties, and providers, expanding the fee schedule to higher education, and ensuring continuity of care for students after high school. Officials said county offices of education, DHCS, and other partners are using communities of practice and technical assistance to spread best practices, and that CYBHI services can follow some young adults through age 25, with additional supports through community-based programs and digital platforms.

Transcript Highlights:

• What's the impact? What's that impact going to be? Yeah, Mr.
• And because I'm a rural New Mexico guy, if we're impacting people that are providing a good service to
• If those students are indeed rural students, to be given credit for their rural attendance.
• rurality. ...because of efficiencies of scale, not necessarily because of the rurality.
• For small rural and tribal districts, the impact is greater.

Bills: SB23, SB73, SB210, SB234, SB243, SB244, SM16

Keywords: student use, wireless devices, public schools, policy implementation, education technology funding, driver education, driver's ed, driving school, motorcycle safety, traffic safety, vulnerable road users, pedestrian safety, bicycle safety, cyclist, bike lane, micromobility, scooter, moped, motorcycle training, DWI prevention