Transcript Highlights:

• When colleges enroll students without the funding that they need, they must absorb those costs locally
• And I did want to thank LAO for acknowledging the ongoing need for Calbright and the additional funding
• We're proposing $120.7 million one-time in Prop 98 General Fund to address deferred maintenance needs
• than waiting for the evaluation report and assessing the need for further funding next year.
• We are having to turn students away because we need more hours, more help, but we don't have the funding

Transcript Highlights:

• SSI is federally funded and SSP is funded by the state General Fund.
• First, I'd like to highlight the... ...funded and SSP is funded by the state General Fund.
• Review of this formula is intended to ensure that funding is getting to where it is needed most, crucially
• We simply can't meet the rising need under the same funding allocations.
• funding.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittees held a joint hearing on older adults and long-term care supports and services, with members and witnesses focusing on the growing “forgotten/overlooked middle” of Californians who are too wealthy for Medi-Cal but unable to afford long-term services and supports (LTSS). Administration witnesses from DHCS and the Department of Aging described Medicare’s limited long-term care coverage, Medi-Cal’s role for low-income residents, and ongoing state work on LTSS financing, including a 2024 financing initiative and a final report due in 2026. Testimony emphasized rising costs, caregiver shortages, homelessness among older adults, and the need to preserve home- and community-based services to avoid more expensive institutional care. Several advocates urged immediate action, especially Medi-Cal share-of-cost reform, housing supports, and protection of HCBS funding. Members asked for the most urgent budget priorities and were told to focus on share-of-cost reform and assisted-living rate protections, along with broader system navigation and caregiver support. The committee also heard testimony on the Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS) program. CDA reported that CBAS serves about 42,000 participants through 304 centers, with demand generally stable but geographic gaps in some regions and staffing challenges after the pandemic. DHCS explained a rate-setting issue: a 10% CBAS rate increase had been mistakenly posted on the Medi-Cal fee schedule in 2024, and while Proposition 35 later made the targeted SB 159 rate increase inoperative, DHCS said any repayment by managed care plans would depend on contract terms and the department would not require clawbacks. CBAS providers and advocates warned that the program is in a financial crisis, with six center closures since June 2024, and requested $74.8 million ongoing General Fund to close about half the gap between current reimbursement and costs. Members expressed concern that clawbacks could accelerate closures and noted the program’s role in preventing institutionalization and supporting family caregivers. In the final panel, CDSS presented on In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) provider recruitment and retention and on the AB 102 statewide bargaining report. CDSS said the IHSS Career Pathways program has concluded successfully, with more than 59,000 providers completing training, and that the AB 102 report—based on workgroup meetings and consultant analysis—will be sent to the Legislature shortly. The department said the workgroup viewed statewide bargaining as more viable than regional bargaining, but identified major issues around consumer participation, county fiscal impacts, administrative responsibilities, and the need to define bargaining scope in statute. CDSS estimated that each $1 per hour statewide wage increase would cost at least $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion annually. Provider unions supported statewide bargaining, arguing it would improve wages, benefits, and workforce stability, while county representatives said any statewide model should preserve consumer focus, protect county finances and realignment funds, and keep core administrative functions with local public authorities. The hearing concluded without votes, with members requesting additional follow-up information and urging continued engagement ahead of the May revise.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, it's not that there isn't a need for the funding, but this year was an unusual scenario where we
• I would ask is, do we need to go about creating a whole other fund like this, or do you think that we
• 20 years, so there's no need to fund that.
• Capital Fund.
• We're now talking about $36 million, so we have $7 million that we need from those funds.

Committee: House New Mexico Finance Authority Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• and help them identify potential strategies for funding those needs.
• Those students and the calculation of the funding and facilities needed to implement those plans.
• Those schools needed those funds, but it could have been done without the loss of funds to other schools
• So when we don't have that funding, we have to put that... ...and we need three buses.
• Fully funding the hold harmless at $12.8 million this year gives the schools the time they need to plan

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation on strategic resource management in public education. LESC staff and PED officials argued that New Mexico has increased school funding, but local budgeting and planning remain fragmented and overly compliance-driven. They described long-term pressures including declining enrollment, rising special education costs, falling cash balances, changes in federal funding, and leadership turnover, and said schools need more intentional multi-year planning tied to student outcomes. They also outlined the many disconnected planning requirements schools must complete, compared New Mexico’s current approach with Ohio’s three-year budget forecasting model, and recommended continuing multi-year appropriations, adding $2.5 million for state grants in the unified application, and directing LESC, LFC, and PED to develop a long-term financial planning proposal. PED said it is working to reduce administrative burden through school accreditation, a unified application for federal and state funds, and internal alignment of guidance and coaching, with pilot schools reporting time savings and better alignment. Members raised concerns about four-day school weeks, the burden on small districts, the need for outcomes and return on investment, and whether the state should move toward a two-year or three-year planning cycle; staff clarified that the proposal was to streamline or eliminate redundant requirements, not add another layer. The committee then received an update on the Educator Fellows program. PED described it as a Grow Your Own pipeline that employs candidates as supplemental educational assistants while they work toward licensure, providing salary, benefits, paid leave, mentoring, and coursework support. Officials said the program helps address teacher shortages, improves student-to-teacher ratios, increases workforce diversity, and supports the Martinez-Yazzie action plan. They reported 370 current fellows across 86 LEAs and about 180 schools, with many fellows being people of color, first-generation college students, or second-career educators; roughly 85 are expected to become certified this year. A local HR director from Belen testified that the program has been especially valuable in small communities, where fellows are already rooted in the community and several have moved into teaching roles. Members asked about high school recruitment, tuition, retirement and benefits, the relationship to the Higher Education Department’s Grow Your Own scholarship, and the role of university partners. PED said fellows choose among accredited higher education partners, the program is separate from the scholarship but complementary, and the state is also building an apprenticeship model and seeking to expand the program to more LEAs, though some districts are on a waiting list because of funding and local match requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• to fund our department, where we desperately need funds.
• to fund our department, where we desperately need funds.
• to fund our department, where we desperately need funds.
• 22:45.279><c> yeah</c> where we desperately need funds yeah where we desperately need funds yeah it's
• So you don't need a fund for that? Are you going to the general fund?

Summary: The Finance Division II work session focused on Fish and Game’s budget-revenue proposals and several statutory changes the department said it needs to support its operations. The department recommended raising the fisheries habitat fee and wildlife habitat fee to $5 each, estimating additional annual revenue of about $640,000 and $144,000 respectively. Members clarified that these are habitat fees added on top of licenses, not reduced by senior or youth license categories, and discussed the need for RSA changes to allow the revenue to be transferred into the Fish and Game Fund. The department also said it would work internally on any broader license fee increases through the commission process. The committee then reviewed proposals to cap several dedicated accounts and transfer excess balances to the unrestricted Fish and Game Fund. Those accounts included the fisheries and wildlife habitat funds and the game management account, with the department proposing a $750,000 cap on each and transfer of amounts above that threshold. The department said the cap was based on several years of expenditures and the fact that dedicated funds are often used as match for federal funds. Members asked for reports on fund activity and questioned whether the cap and mandatory transfer language should be “shall” or “may,” with the department indicating it would prefer “may” for flexibility. The committee also discussed a Pheasant Management Program account, where the department said current law limits use of the money to buying and propagating pheasants and it wants authority to use it for broader program management. A substantial portion of the meeting addressed Fish and Game’s environmental review unit and the transfer of ARPA-funded positions to DEES under the governor’s initiative. The department said four positions are currently ARPA-funded, that DEES supports keeping them in place through the end of the year, and that the transition will require time because environmental review work is intertwined across the agency. The department explained that before the ARPA positions, biologists handled the work and that current staffing has helped eliminate a backlog and meet deadlines. Members also discussed a proposal to expand environmental review fees beyond private developers to state, federal, municipal, and local governments, with the department saying it would need rulemaking and stakeholder input. Additional requests included authority to conduct raffles to raise funds, creation of a revolving account for donations and raffle proceeds, and repeal of the obsolete fish food sales statute because the vending machines are no longer functional and the account generates no revenue.

Transcript Highlights:

• still continues to need general fund support.
• So we need some additional funding to reduce vacancies, as well as increased funding to support utility
• How do we fund counties? Which counties really need it?
• into that later on, but ultimately, we need the funding.
• The need for recurring funding: we've been very generous with Indian Water Rights settlement funding,

Committee: Senate Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• And we know that the state funding for the CSU has not kept up with need. And educator...
• And we know that the state funding for the CSU has not kept up with need, and educator preparation is
• And we know that the state funding for the CSU has not kept up with need.
• High-need districts and subjects need the full $100 million funding from the GSTG. Thank you.
• High-need districts and subjects need the full $100 million funding from the GSTG. Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• Formula (SCFF) is that we do see a deficit of around 1.5% to 2% in overall funding need to fully fund
• to the actual programs that need to get funded.
• funding is needed for this purpose in the future.
• We urgently need university funding.
• It needs to be fixed, and fair funding floors need to be established for colleges, particularly like

Transcript Highlights:

• To withdraw funds to provide non-recurring funding for a critical state need in a separate bill passed
• I'm curious generally, first, about the need to increase the stabilization fund.
• How are we defining critical state need in the context of the Budget Stabilization Fund?
• to a degree that we may not be able to fund those items that we need to fund.
• Chair Hooper: We may not be able to fund those items that we need to fund.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Appropriations Committee heard three measures focused on state finances. SB 1906 by Senator Brodeur would add a ninth element to the state debt reduction strategy report and create a program to transfer $250 million annually from the General Revenue Fund to accelerate retirement of outstanding state debt, while exempting the Department of Transportation and Florida Turnpike Enterprise. Members questioned the fiscal tradeoffs and flexibility, but the bill was supported in debate and reported favorably. The committee then considered SJR 1908 by Chair Hooper, which would amend the Constitution to raise the Budget Stabilization Fund cap from 10% to 25% of general revenue collections, require $750 million annual deposits until the cap is reached, and allow withdrawals for critical state needs by separate bill with a two-thirds vote, while keeping existing rules for emergencies and revenue shortfalls. Testimony and debate centered on whether Florida already has sufficient reserves, how “critical state need” would be defined, and whether the new requirement would reduce flexibility during recessions or federal funding cuts. Despite opposition from advocacy groups and several senators, the resolution was reported favorably. Finally, the committee took up HB 7031 as the vehicle for the tax package and adopted a delete-everything amendment to place it in the proper posture for conference. As amended, the bill was described as reducing the state sales tax by 0.75%, lowering the commercial rent tax from 2% to 1.25%, eliminating the business rent tax, and creating permanent sales tax exemptions while preserving sales tax holidays. The amended bill was reported favorably, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's why I'm truly praying and hoping you consider this year the funding needed to increase home and
• We simply need the additional funding because we can do much, much, much, much more.
• These children need broadening. find that same success without Gator funding.
• Increasing Gator funds for students with special needs is not about politics. It's about dignity.
• However, merely maintaining the funding is insufficient to meet the needs of Louisiana's families and

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you need additional dollars? I'm not going to say no. We could always use additional funding.
• Funding carried into FY26 that is no longer needed in FY27.
• This is primarily comprised of funding that was carried into FY26 and is no longer needed in FY27.
• Decrease in IAT, primarily due to funding carried into FY26 that is no longer needed in FY27.
• In Louisiana, we try to strike a balance between needing the funds, needing the funds to support the

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• That's what I'm here to talk about. understanding because you're saying it's a we you need the funding
• Comparing the timing of its immediate capital needs to the authority's potential future funding stream
• The shift to the Lead Acid Battery Cleanup Fund provides general fund savings, which the state needs
• 100% of the extraordinary costs so we don't need to ask for an emergency fund. we don't need to ask
• In particular, DSGS needs new funding in the June budget bill, or we risk discouraging participation

Transcript Highlights:

• for funding, and they need to have that obligation authority in order to move the project forward.
• everybody else fights for too and take away from their needs to further fund water needs.
• everybody else fights for too and take away from their needs to further fund water needs.
• But when they did this study, there's more funding needs that I'm aware of?
• Is there more dollars needed out there that we're not funding that are being asked for?

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Do we consider what those numbers tell us when it comes to funding needs?
• We need to fund the judicial branch as a third and co-equal branch of government.
• And so we need to get that funding up.
• We need to make sure that those funds are spent appropriately.
• We need to make sure that those funds are spent appropriately. Additional questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Additional HEF dollars would free up much-needed funds for all of the non-PUF universities in the state
• We need the UT system to invest in more funding for our regional institutions. universities.
• that, without your support, would need to be funded by tuition.
• This funding is essential to our operations and maintenance support needs.
• The formula funds the difference between an institution's funding need to cover the cost of instruction

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• So this would say that for this program the funding needs to for this program the funding needs to come
• So, we can fund a fund that also engages in venture... a fund that also engages in venture capital.
• Available funds?
• Those funds either were used as matching funds for MRG.
• The available [clears throat] funding The available [clears throat] funding is not up where the need

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to restart a program that was funded for three years. The wildlife coverage...
• We also need to continue negotiations around the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
• Things have changed, and I believe that the negotiation over the allocations of GGRF funds needs to be
• We need to provide funding.
• We also need to make sure that we recall that some of the funding that we're doing...

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

• sources and then I'll pick up on TxDOT's UTP future. needs and some policy and funding issues at the
• Highway Fund.
• So when you talk about an enterprise fund and meeting mobility needs.
• Technical needs, customer service, debt, then CIP funding, and whatever's left over is surplus. and it
• Additional funds are needed for any projects.

Committee: House S/C on Transportation Funding

Transcript Highlights:

• They need that funding to meet those needs.
• So overall budget resiliency does need to look at special funds as well.
• So overall budget resiliency does need to look at special funds as well; it's not just the General Fund
• We need $45 million out of the General Fund to support this critical program.
• We need $45 million out of the general fund to support this critical program.

Summary: The meeting began with a lengthy opening discussion with Secretary Karen Ross of the Department of Food and Agriculture, who reviewed the department’s proposed budget, emphasized California agriculture’s record output, and highlighted major priorities including climate-smart agriculture, groundwater management, local food systems, farm-to-school, food hubs, invasive pest prevention, bird flu response, and food safety. She also warned about federal budget cuts, especially at USDA and FDA, and discussed market access challenges abroad, rising input costs, labor shortages, and the need for automation and workforce training. Members raised questions about the future of Farm to School, the California Nutrition Incentive Program/Market Match, local food procurement, and how to better connect farmers to schools, food banks, and food hubs; Ross said the department had strong evidence the program benefits small farms and Title I schools and noted continued interest in building out local food infrastructure. The committee then took up item one on eliminating vacant positions at the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Parks and Recreation, and Food and Agriculture. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that the Governor proposed eliminating 6,000 vacant positions statewide, with the Joint Legislative Budget Committee previously rejecting 650 of them, including 174 in these three departments. LAO and Finance said the vacancies represented a source of budget flexibility, but warned that eliminating them could create program impacts; LAO recommended retaining the special-funded positions at Fish and Wildlife and Food and Agriculture, while weighing the General Fund positions against other priorities. Finance argued the reductions were part of a broader budget-resiliency exercise and that departments could reclassify or shift vacancies to higher priorities. Members focused heavily on the practical impacts of the cuts. Assemblymember Petrie-Norris argued that Fish and Wildlife staffing shortages were already slowing permits needed for housing, clean energy, water, and transportation projects, and questioned the value of saving relatively small amounts of money. Fish and Wildlife officials said the department had prioritized mission-critical work and could still meet permitting obligations, but acknowledged limited-term staffing constraints. State Parks said the proposed ranger and maintenance cuts would not have immediate effects but could slow maintenance and eventually worsen deferred maintenance. Food and Agriculture said some of the eliminated positions supported early pest detection and eradication, but that the department believed it could still meet its mandate and reclassify positions if needed. The chair and several members signaled concern about the Fish and Wildlife and Parks cuts, while also noting the broader need for budget reductions. The committee then moved to item six, hearing an overview from the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. Staff described the office’s role in CEQA implementation and said the budget requests were baseline funding to maintain existing functions, including IT services and administrative/legislative support, rather than new programs. The chair asked the presenters to move quickly through background material so the committee could get to questions, and the item began with no votes taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• And is it just a sense overall that more funding is needed to address the backlog of infrastructure problems
• this funding.
• To continue to lead both on Chapter 90 and on the need, and on presenting the need for MBTA funding to
• We know there's a long-standing need for better, more fair, and more timely funding for local transportation
• they need to build and maintain modern infrastructure, and the funding model proposed here today recognizes

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Transportation

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation held its first hearing of the session on H. 53, Governor Healey’s Chapter 90 proposal to increase state funding for municipal roads, bridges, sidewalks, and culverts. Committee chairs outlined the hybrid hearing process and invited testimony from municipal officials, labor groups, regional planning organizations, contractors, and administration officials. Across the hearing, speakers consistently supported the bill, emphasizing long-deferred maintenance, inflation in construction costs, climate-related flooding, and the need for more predictable, multi-year funding so cities and towns can plan projects and take advantage of the construction season. The administration described H. 53 as part of a broader $8 billion transportation package, proposing to raise annual Chapter 90 funding from $200 million to $300 million for five years, with the additional $100 million distributed by road mileage to better support rural and small communities. They also highlighted $200 million for culverts and small bridges, plus other transportation investments, and said the five-year authorization would provide certainty for municipal capital planning. Municipal witnesses from places including Carlisle, Beverly, Granby, Hatfield, Newton, Nahant, Gardner, Beckett, and Yarmouth described local road and culvert backlogs, rising asphalt costs, and the difficulty of maintaining infrastructure on limited local budgets. Labor and industry witnesses from the AFL-CIO and MAPA said the bill would support good-paying jobs and provide stability for contractors and producers. The MBTA Advisory Board and regional planning representatives also backed the proposal, noting the connection between local roads and the broader transportation system. Committee members asked questions about the road-mile formula, culvert needs, asphalt costs, and the rationale for a five-year authorization. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the committee adjourned after testimony concluded.