Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, Representative Little, we're asking for increased general fund funding for those areas of need
• It has resulted in much-needed funding increases, and I am pleased to report that we've put those funds
• However, we do not have funding to make those needed repairs.
• I don't anticipate us needing to come before the body for additional funding. Emergency funding.
• , while the LFC fully funded that need.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• More funding, bigger grants are needed, so yes, it's permitting reform and more funding.
• MVP is the only state grant program that is funding desperately needed heat adaptations.
• The Mass Ready Act addresses many funding and policy needs.
• What we need is sustained, reliable funding to bring those solutions to scale.
• Mostly, we need more funding for air quality monitoring.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

Summary: The hearing focused on the Healey-Driscoll administration’s Mass Ready Act, a $3 billion environmental bond bill. Administration officials said the bill would fund climate resilience, clean water, land conservation, parks, PFAS remediation, food security infrastructure, and coastal and inland flood protection, while also streamlining permitting for housing, restoration, and other resilience projects. They emphasized that the bond authorizes spending but does not itself obligate it, and said the proposal includes deauthorizations as housekeeping. Committee members asked about the new Resilience Revolving Fund, flood and drought management, MVP funding, land acquisition, Chapter 61 right-of-first-refusal changes, salt marsh carbon sequestration, and how the bill would help smaller municipalities and offset expected federal funding losses. Officials said the revolving fund would be managed through EEA and the Clean Water Trust, with criteria aimed at directing aid to communities most in need, and noted that drought issues would continue to be handled through existing DEP and drought commission tools. Several committee members and witnesses discussed specific policy provisions, including flood disclosure requirements for homebuyers and renters, expanded authority for regional planning and small-town access to grants, and permitting reforms that would exempt or expedite certain environmental restoration and priority housing projects from more time-consuming review processes. Administration witnesses defended the reforms as a way to achieve the same environmental outcomes faster and with more certainty, while some advocates argued the bill should go further, especially on Chapter 91 and restoration permitting. The administration also described investments in DCR facilities, water and wastewater systems, open space, agricultural easements, and a new focus on blue carbon and salt marsh restoration. Public testimony largely supported the bill. Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, The Nature Conservancy, MAPC, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, municipal officials, and others praised the bill’s resilience, conservation, and water infrastructure investments. Some witnesses urged additional funding for land protection, coastal resilience, buyouts, and restoration, and several called for stronger or simpler permitting reforms. Municipal witnesses from Boston, Beckett, Beverly, Conway, and regional planning organizations stressed the need for flexible financing, especially for small and rural communities facing costly infrastructure and climate adaptation projects. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and asked questions before moving on to additional panels.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we really need to keep as many people on CalFresh by funding counties and supporting the CalFresh
• We support funding for counties to ensure they are adequately staffed to meet the increased need across
• This loss of both federal and state funding comes as food banks face an unprecedented increase in need
• Food banks need CalFood funding now more than ever to ensure we can meet the needs of our communities
• Now that we're going to give it more funding, how confident are we that all that funding is needed even

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services heard an overview of the expected California budget and program impacts from H.R. 1, including changes to Medi-Cal and CalFresh eligibility, redeterminations, work requirements, immigration-related coverage rules, retroactive coverage limits, and reductions in federal matching for certain services and provider financing mechanisms. DHCS and CDSS described implementation plans focused on automation, data matching, clearer communications, county training, and outreach, while noting that many federal details are still pending. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also reviewed how H.R. 1 could increase pressure on county indigent care systems, explaining the history of county responsibility under Section 17000, 1991 realignment, and AB 85, and warning that counties may face large increases in uninsured residents seeking care without corresponding funding flexibility. An independent policy expert urged consideration of a more standardized statewide approach to indigent care and raised questions about governance, benefits, and financing. Department witnesses estimated substantial coverage losses and fiscal effects: DHCS projected major Medi-Cal disenrollment tied to work requirements, six-month renewals, narrowed immigrant eligibility, and reduced retroactive coverage, while CDSS estimated large CalFresh benefit losses and a significant increase in administrative workload and payment accuracy pressure. Members questioned how exemptions would work for older adults, people experiencing homelessness, undocumented residents, and cash workers, and asked about the effect on the CalFresh Minimum Nutrition Benefit Pilot and on county administrative funding. Officials said they would use available data and self-attestation where possible, but acknowledged that many cases would require manual screening and that the county workload estimates remain in dispute. They also said the state is still evaluating the impact of H.R. 1 on provider taxes and state-directed payments, which could create additional budget pressure. County representatives from Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Tulare, and San Bernardino described major local consequences if H.R. 1 is implemented as written. They warned of higher uninsured rates, more strain on emergency rooms and public hospitals, increased homelessness and food insecurity, and a likely need to rebuild or expand county indigent care programs that were largely scaled back after the ACA. Counties said they are already freezing hiring, cutting positions, reducing overtime, deferring spending, and launching outreach and coordination efforts with managed care plans and community partners, but argued that these steps are not enough without additional state support. Several counties backed the California County Welfare Directors Association’s request for $373 million in General Fund support for eligibility work and asked for a CalFresh match waiver to soften the new county share of administrative costs; Los Angeles and Santa Clara also emphasized that their local revenue measures would not close the projected gaps. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to restart a program that was funded for three years, the Wildlife Coexistence Program.
• 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...

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 109, the Budget Act of 2026, as the main item. Committee leaders described the legislative budget agreement as a balanced two-year plan with about $355.9 billion in total spending, $253 billion from the General Fund, and $36.5 billion in reserves. The Legislative Analyst and Department of Finance said the package assumes about $5.5 billion in higher revenues than the May Revision and uses those resources for a mix of spending changes, including higher Proposition 98 support, additional child care slots, housing and homelessness funding, delayed Medi-Cal reductions, and added support for counties, public hospitals, and distressed hospitals. The administration said the plan resembles the May Revision’s overall structure but includes new spending and revenue assumptions, and members noted that separate revenue trailer bills would be heard later in the week. Much of the committee discussion focused on Medi-Cal, H.R. 1, and the impact on immigrants, low-income workers, counties, and hospitals. Several senators criticized the budget for locking in savings from delayed or reduced Medi-Cal coverage and for not including a mechanism to restore eligibility, while administration and LAO staff said the package delays some reductions but does not automatically reinstate coverage. Finance staff said roughly 1.5 million to 2 million people with unsatisfactory immigration status would move from managed care to fee-for-service, with coverage largely unchanged except for certain services not federally allowed. Members also discussed county administrative funding, indigent care, public hospital support, and the expected rise in uncompensated care. Other topics included In-Home Supportive Services, child care, homelessness funding, Prop. 36, courthouse construction and new judgeships, transit and cap-and-invest/GGRF funding, local journalism, and workforce or reentry programs. Committee members split along party lines in their comments. Democratic members generally supported the agreement as a difficult but responsible compromise that protects core services, preserves reserves, and makes targeted investments in education, housing, health care, and justice system capacity. Republican members argued the budget relies on unrealistic revenue assumptions, does not sufficiently reduce spending, and includes costly policy choices and tax increases. Public testimony largely came from advocates and stakeholders who supported IHSS, Medi-Cal, child care, domestic violence services, hospitals, transit, and other programs, while some business and health plan representatives raised concerns about tax proposals and the shift from managed care to fee-for-service. The chair then moved the committee to public comment and indicated that the revenue bills would return later in the week; no final vote on AB 109 is reflected in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• in FY28 after these funds were temporarily going straight to the general fund.
• of general fund to fully fund that program.
• I need to see it.
• I need to see it.
• And there's no doubt we need to, and for a later day, we can talk about how we can fund the judiciary

Summary: The committee first took up the fiscal status statement, certification of the state surplus, and the five-year baseline budget. Officials from the Office of Planning and Budget and the Division of Administration said the January fiscal status statement had no changes, and the commissioner certified a surplus of $577,073,871. They also reviewed the baseline outlook, noting projected imbalances in later years driven by declining revenue, including the redirection of motor vehicle sales tax, and rising costs such as inflation and Medicaid-related expenses. The fiscal status statement was approved without objection. The governor’s executive budget was then presented as a third consecutive standstill budget, with administration officials emphasizing efficiency savings, no reduction in services, and no reduction in state workforce. They said the budget relies on prior savings efforts and incorporates agency-level cuts and reorganization, while also addressing higher costs in corrections, DCFS, and health care. Major items highlighted included funding for LA GATOR, the high-impact jobs program, DCFS modernization, corrections population and overtime needs, nursing home and managed care adjustments at LDH, and additional support for the MJ Foster Scholarship Program. Members asked about the impact of inflation, the use of federal versus state funds, the future of voucher and GATOR funding, and whether more support should go to DCFS and the Hero Fund. The committee also received the calculation of the FY27 expenditure limit, set at $20.1 billion, and the annual comprehensive financial report for FY2025, which received a clean audit opinion. Members approved a BA-7 increasing federal funds for an executive office transportation grant, approved additions to the Act 751 higher education deferred maintenance project list and a Baton Rouge Community College project combination, and approved contract amendments for CPRA with Coastal Estuary Services and Access Sciences. The committee also corrected a legislative intent item naming the New Orleans Recreational Development Foundation. Finally, the judiciary presented a weighted caseload study for district and appellate courts, explaining it as an updated tool to assess judicial workload and potential judgeship needs; members discussed its limits, the role of specialty courts and commissioners, and the need for further legislative-judicial collaboration before any changes are made.

Transcript Highlights:

• well as the legislature for funding, and they need to have that obligation authority in order to move
• 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?
• other state needs outside of the water community to fund water projects because we're going to have

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

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:

• However, ongoing funding is needed to support annual staff training. Lastly, we have...
• However, ongoing funding is needed to support annual staff training.
• So federal funding is woefully inadequate, but there is a very large need.
• We agree that we need more funding in there.
• We agree that we need more funding in there.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals on dual enrollment, reading difficulty screeners, special education, school facilities, and Commission on Teacher Credentialing programs. On dual enrollment, the Department of Finance described a $100 million one-time Proposition 98 investment to expand the Dual Enrollment Opportunities Grant Program, along with changes to make regional occupational centers eligible, add funding for justice-involved youth, prioritize higher-need LEAs, support teacher professional development, and reduce daily instructional minute requirements for some dual enrollment students. The LAO recommended rejecting the new funding as not clearly addressing implementation barriers, while CDE supported the proposal and suggested reserving $10 million for technical assistance. Committee members and public commenters generally supported the expansion, with some asking for technical assistance and broader access, including adult dual enrollment. The committee also reviewed a $40 million one-time Proposition 98 proposal for reading difficulty screener implementation and related trailer bill language that would require screening after 91 school days for kindergarten and 46 school days for grades 1-2. Finance said the timing was intended to reduce over-identification and align with evidence from preliminary data; the LAO recommended rejecting the funding and redirecting it to a discretionary block grant. CDE supported the funding and the general approach but acknowledged the need for local support and training. Several committee members and public witnesses raised concerns that the proposed timing restrictions were too rigid and could delay early intervention, while others supported the delay as a way to improve accuracy and avoid misidentification. For special education, Finance proposed ongoing Proposition 98 increases to adjust for COLA and enrollment changes and to raise the statewide special education base rate to $99 per ADA, equalizing rates across SELPAs. The LAO said the proposal should be adopted but estimated it could be funded for less than the Governor’s figure. CDE and multiple local education representatives strongly supported the increase, citing rising special education enrollment, cost pressures, and large local funding gaps. The committee also heard a brief overview of the school facilities proposal, which continues $1.5 billion in Proposition 2 bond funding for the School Facility Program; OPSC reported significant remaining bond authority but also substantial pending demand, and explained that natural disaster school rebuilding draws from the broader new construction and modernization pools. Finally, the committee reviewed Commission on Teacher Credentialing proposals, including the already-funded $300 million Student Teacher Stipend Program, new state operations resources for misconduct investigations and grant administration, and a $250 million one-time continuation of the Teacher Residency Grant Program. CTC said its grants management system is ready and that it expects better data tracking; public testimony broadly supported the educator workforce investments and urged continued funding for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and additional support for rural and leadership pipeline programs. No votes were taken, and the hearing adjourned after public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's the funding mechanism that provides what we need to build out this system and operate it.
• is funded by the General Fund.
• So we really do need a framework. ...is funded by the General Fund, so we really do need a framework
• The Department of Justice is primarily currently funded by two funds: the Gambling Control Fund and the
• The Department of Justice is primarily currently funded by two funds: the Gambling Control Fund and the

Summary: The committee heard an overview from Cal OES on disaster response, LA wildfire recovery, federal FEMA reimbursements, security monitoring, and the state’s 911 transition. Cal OES said its budget supports disaster preparedness and recovery, including ongoing work in Los Angeles, where it reported about 700 FEMA public assistance applications totaling roughly $1.2 billion and about $545 million in state wildfire response and recovery funding already allocated under AB 100. Members pressed for more detail on FEMA delays, hazard mitigation grants, federal event planning, and the status of Operation Stonegarden, while also raising concerns about small-disaster recovery, federal shutdown impacts, and the need for more timely reporting. A major portion of the hearing focused on Next Generation 911. Cal OES described problems with the current regional deployment, especially call-routing and transfer failures, and said it now plans to shift to a statewide provider as an interim step, then run an open procurement for a long-term vendor. The agency said it expects to execute a bridging contract in the coming weeks, release an RFP in the second quarter of 2026, award a long-term contract in the fall, begin transitioning Los Angeles-area PSAPs ahead of the 2028 Olympics, and complete statewide migration by summer 2030. The LAO urged the Legislature to pause further implementation until it has more information on the problems, alternatives, costs, privacy/security issues, and oversight needs, and recommended quarterly and monthly reporting if the project proceeds. Several senators echoed concerns about cost, redundancy, cybersecurity, and whether the statewide model could create new risks, and the chair said she would pursue a joint oversight hearing with the Emergency Management Committee and seek input from the State Auditor. The Department of Justice then presented its overall workload and budget pressures. DOJ highlighted its work on fentanyl enforcement, human trafficking, firearms recovery, housing enforcement, consumer protection, environmental and civil rights litigation, and a large federal litigation workload, saying it has filed 59 lawsuits against the Trump administration and won most of them. DOJ said the added federal cases and other mandates have strained existing staff, though 44 additional hires have been made. Members praised DOJ’s work on immigration, housing, and federal accountability, and asked for more information on detention facilities and staffing. The committee also reviewed DOJ’s firearms-related budget proposals. DOJ requested funding for continued firearms IT modernization, implementation of SB 704 on firearm barrels, and a temporary shift of Bureau of Firearms costs to the General Fund. The LAO supported the IT modernization request but recommended funding SB 704 from the Dealer’s Record of Sale Special Account, with startup costs covered by a loan from the Firearm Safety and Enforcement Special Fund, and suggested limiting the General Fund shift to one year and treating it as a loan. The LAO also asked DOJ to develop a framework by January 10, 2027, for deciding which firearm and ammunition workload should be supported by fee revenue rather than the General Fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• Marsha Moberly: ...the funding and the resources that we need to meet the needs of our citizens is paramount
• The funding for this program has not kept up with current needs.
• Speaker: The funding for this program is not kept up with current needs.
• Speaker: The funding for this program is not kept up with current needs.
• We're needing additional funding.

Bills: SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• We always have a pretty good bill when it comes to special needs fund for special needs kids, and that
• We always have a pretty good bill when it comes to special needs fund for special needs kids and that
• Here we're being told we need another $190 million on top of that historic funding.
• into the formula that we expect to fund and we tell you that you need to fund.
• We had a conversation related to the high need fund a few weeks ago with Director Hogg.

Committee: House Budget

Summary: The committee first heard the Secretary of State’s FY27 budget presentation. Secretary Denny Hoskins described his office’s work on business filings, elections administration, securities enforcement, archives, libraries, and Safe at Home, and said the office had cleaned up voter rolls by removing more than 200,000 ineligible voters. Members questioned him closely about deceased voters, voter registration through DMVs, information sharing with the federal government, and whether any personal identifying information would be released; Hoskins said only publicly available information had been shared and that PII would not be released absent a court order. He also said his office had 10 pending lawsuits handled by the Attorney General’s office, and discussed budget lapses, staffing levels, and the need to spend federal and other funds before general revenue when possible. A major portion of the discussion focused on election-related funding requests. Hoskins defended funding for ballot publication in newspapers, saying the constitution and state law require publication of statewide ballot measures and that the cost could rise sharply if many petitions or a referendum reach the ballot. Several members questioned whether the newspaper notices are still effective, while others emphasized that many Missourians still rely on print and that the requirement remains constitutional. The committee also discussed the technology services NDI tied to the sunset of the $5 business filing fee that funds IT operations, with Hoskins saying the office would need general revenue if the sunset is not extended. Other topics included absentee ballot postage reimbursement, election cost transfers, and the library networking fund, which Hoskins said has not historically been funded at the full 10 percent level. Members also raised broader budget and policy concerns, including the office’s FTE count, the restoration of some previously cut archives/local records positions, and the need for a new voter registration system and election-night reporting system. Some members pressed Hoskins on whether his budget requests were consistent with his past calls for smaller government, while he responded that election-year obligations, cybersecurity risks, and outdated systems require investment. The committee did not take a vote on the Secretary of State items during this segment. The committee then began the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education presentation from Commissioner Carla Eslinger. She outlined the FY27 request for the foundation formula, transportation, child care, literacy, educator workforce, and strategic planning. Eslinger said the formula increase is driven by policy changes such as enrollment-based funding and higher special education and virtual education costs; transportation needs a modest increase; child care needs general revenue to replace expiring federal funds; and literacy efforts continue to expand through science-of-reading training and state-approved assessments. She also highlighted through-year testing, grade-level descriptors, teacher recruitment and retention, and work with a new Transforming Schools group. The presentation was cut short when the committee recessed for floor activity, with no votes taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have an obligation to meet those obligations that says that Prop 98, we need to fund.
• The state still needs to provide 40% of state revenues to schools, so the overall pot of funding isn't
• We need to make sure that the funding is consistent for these school districts.
• We are very appreciative of the funding that is proposed for special education, but more needs to be
• They use CLSA funds to address their needs, including shared digital books.

Transcript Highlights:

• Page 10, the Loss of Development Fund. We need a hospital in these mountains.
• Additionally, the funding that was placed in there will help us identify specific infrastructure needs
• We need to finish up that funding so that we can finish that look directly to the port, and then the
• Funds not immediately needed are invested with safety, liquidity, and yield at the forefront.
• This helps millions more people to have these funds to invest in and then use when they need to.

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Grant funding provides important support, but predictable and sustainable funding is needed.
• Predictable and sustainable funding is needed to ensure continuity and effectiveness to meet the state's
• As the subcommittee hears from subsequent panels about the need for funding and other resources to implement
• They need to come with their local funding. ...of the responsibility, a stake in the game.
• They need to come with their local funding to come with the state funding. Great, thank you. LAO.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation held an oversight hearing on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation strategies. The chair opened by stressing that California has reached a tipping point, with repeated community-scale wildfire losses, rising insurance costs, and growing utility wildfire mitigation expenses. The hearing was organized around four panels: what home hardening and defensible space are, community risk reduction and coordination, evaluation of current defensible space programs and proposed investments, and the future of home hardening and the California Wildfire Mitigation Program. The first panel featured IBHS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and local wildfire mitigation advocates. IBHS described wildfire spread through embers, flames, and radiant heat, emphasizing that structure separation, removing combustible materials within the first five feet of a home, and combining multiple mitigation measures significantly reduce loss. It highlighted its Wildfire Prepared Home and Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood standards, including an “essential” and “enhanced” level, and said California is ahead of other states but still needs scalable, standardized, and sustainably funded mitigation. The LAO outlined key policy questions for the Legislature, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, measurement of success, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. The chair and panelists discussed estimated costs, including roughly $15,000 for a basic retrofit and about $50,000 for more extensive ignition-resistant construction, and whether state funding should focus on the most cost-effective initial measures. The second panel focused on scaling adoption through local coordination, education, financing, and community-based programs. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption problem and said the state should not try to pay for every home, but instead target high-leverage interventions across the “customer journey,” including education, financing, trusted certification, and neighborhood network effects. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council described free home assessments, small retrofit grants, Firewise community support, and the importance of neighborhood-level action, local capacity, and cultural change. Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described its locally funded model, grant program, public education efforts, and an Ember Ready program that helps residents navigate home hardening and Zone Zero compliance. The chair repeatedly emphasized the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, stronger incentives, better insurance discounts, and more use of local, utility, federal, and private funding sources. The third and fourth panels addressed Cal Fire’s defensible space inspection program, the proposed defensible space financial assistance program, and broader state investments. Cal Fire said homes lacking compliant defensible space are far more likely to be damaged or destroyed and requested ongoing funding and staffing to stabilize inspections statewide; the LAO suggested the Legislature consider alternative funding sources such as GGRF or a reinstated SRA fee. Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal explained that Zone Zero sets a minimum standard, local governments cannot go below it, and grant prioritization will favor jurisdictions that submit inspections. Cal Fire also said the new defensible space financial assistance program would focus on ember-resistant zone-zero work and, in the Southern California counties covered by the legislation, would assist about 3,125 homes at an estimated $8,000 per home. In the final panel, the State Fire Marshal described California’s layered strategy of parcel-level home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, along with technical support, financial assistance, and incentives such as insurance discounts and builder marketing. The overall theme was that California must move from isolated efforts to a coordinated, science-based, and scalable statewide approach to reduce wildfire losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so again, by taking our needs and shifting them to revenue sources outside of the general fund, recurring
• You already have such a need for funding out of your money that you already get to keep replacing copper
• fund?
• I do understand the urgency to have reoccurring funding for your department and for the needs of our
• Whereas with the transportation project fund, they would only need $5,000.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, there's building safety, physical building safety that needs to be funded, too.
• One district may need metal detectors; another may need additional funding for that SRO individual.
• I think what we need to do is find out what kind of funding mechanism we can...
• The state is taking this as a serious... we need to fund this.
• It's not a want We need to fund this. It's not a want for schools anymore.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on School Finance Recalibration

Transcript Highlights:

• or to suspend funds into... ...to either withdraw funds from the BSA or to suspend funds into the BSA
• And then how are the funds invested in the rainy day fund?
• The Rainy Day Fund.
• Any conversation, any discussion of the UI Fund needs to be paired with a serious proposal for reform
• Any conversation, any discussion of the UI Fund needs to be paired with a serious proposal for reform

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on proposals to reform California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or rainy day fund, ahead of the May Revision. Members and witnesses reviewed how Proposition 2 (2014) changed reserve rules, including mandatory deposits, a 10% cap on the fund, and limits tied to the Governor’s declaration of a budget emergency. LAO staff explained that California’s revenues are highly volatile, that current reserve rules are complicated by interactions with Proposition 98 and the Gann limit, and that under current law reserves would cover only about one-third of funding shortfalls in a benchmark scenario over 50 years. The LAO presented its report recommending a larger reserve target, including raising the cap to 50% by 2055 and pairing that with either broader, more flexible deposit rules or a simpler approach that deposits all excess capital gains. The Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to raise the cap from 10% to 20% and exempt BSA deposits from the state appropriations limit, while Assembly Member Valencia presented ACA 1, which would make similar changes and was described as an evolving proposal. Testimony generally supported saving more during boom years, but differed on how much to hardwire into the Constitution versus leave flexible, and on whether to broaden the deposit formulas beyond capital gains. Public witnesses and committee members raised additional issues, including whether reserve reforms should also address debt repayment, the treatment of unemployment insurance fund debt, and whether the Gann limit should be adjusted to better allow reserve growth. Supporters argued that stronger reserves would protect Californians from cuts during downturns and help the state weather volatility and federal funding threats. Some advocates warned that reforms should not come at the expense of current public needs, while taxpayer representatives cautioned against turning the BSA into a pass-through account that weakens constitutional spending limits. The hearing ended without a vote, with the committee chair noting the complexity of the issue and adjourning after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund to the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, thereby reducing the general fund backfill needed
• We continue to monitor. and we'll work with the judicial branch in you know should funding be be needed
• maybe a county where they may have access fund to a county that may have a greater need for more resources
• And the victim of crime act funded projects really need to be held harmless because they support a variety
• What we need is funding for recruitment and retention sufficient to make sure that.

Transcript Highlights:

• When colleges enroll students without the funding that they need, they must absorb those costs locally
• When colleges enroll students without the funding that they need, they must absorb those costs locally
• , and in some, Without the funding that they need, they must absorb those costs locally, and in some
• Increase in enrollment growth that are not receiving the adequate funding that they need for services
• than waiting for the evaluation report and assessing the need for further funding next year.

Summary: The subcommittee first noted that item one on the Imagination Library update was being pulled pending review of newly received receipts, invoices, and backup documentation from the State Library and the Department of Finance. The chair said the committee would continue reviewing the materials and later determine whether additional oversight and accountability measures are needed regarding taxpayer funds and implementation of the program. The main discussion focused on the California Community Colleges budget request. Chancellor Christian described strong post-pandemic enrollment recovery and asked the Legislature to fund 3% enrollment growth, change the funding formula to use the highest of the three years rather than a three-year average, and remove the 10% growth cap to avoid unfunded FTES. She also urged support for the Governor’s proposals on COLA, deferral repayment, the Common Cloud Data Platform, credit for prior learning, and Calbright College, while adding requests for AI literacy funding, a Rebuild L.A. workforce effort, veterans services, and support for the Chancellor’s Office. Senators raised concerns about high district reserves, part-time faculty conditions, veterans’ credit pathways, and enrollment fraud; Christian said reserves are complex but should be addressed district by district, and that identity verification and AI tools are being used to prevent fraudulent enrollments. Finance and LAO staff then reviewed the student-centered funding formula and enrollment growth proposals. DOF said the Governor’s budget fully repays $408.4 million in deferrals, provides a 2.41% COLA, and includes funding to cover current-year apportionment costs; LAO recommended prioritizing those proposals but suggested beginning enrollment growth funding in 2026-27 rather than revising the current-year target. Chris Ferguson said most districts are growing, that 54 of 72 districts would benefit from a formula change favoring current-year enrollment, and that unfunded growth remains a concern. On facilities, staff explained that deferred maintenance needs are about $2.2 billion, with projects prioritized by life safety, modernization, and capacity needs. The final item was Calbright College. President Menon said Calbright serves more than 6,200 adult learners statewide, with strong completion and wage gains, and asked for the Governor’s proposed $38 million ongoing increase. She and staff emphasized Calbright’s flexible, competency-based model, its partnerships with employers and other colleges, and its role in serving working adults and caregivers. LAO questioned the proposed funding level and recommended moving Calbright onto the student-centered funding formula in the future to better tie funding to enrollment and outcomes, while Calbright argued its structure is different from traditional colleges and needs separate treatment. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• But there's a lot of other needs as well that needs to get funded.
• But there's a lot of other needs as well that needs to get funded.
• But there's a lot of other needs as well that needs to get funded.
• But there's a lot of other needs as well that needs to get funded.
• Every department, every entity, every nonprofit is coming and saying we need more funds.

Committee: Senate Agriculture and Environment

Summary: The joint AEN-HRE hearing focused on HCR 130, HD1, which urges increased and sustained funding for the island invasive species committees and the Hawaii Ant Lab within the University of Hawaii’s Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit. The Department of Agriculture said it supported the intent and noted that ISC funding flows through the Hawaii Invasive Species Council budget item via DLNR, while also describing ongoing collaboration with DLNR and efforts to support ant control work. Testifiers from CAPS, the University of Hawaii, the Oahu Invasive Species Committee, and CARES all supported the resolution, emphasizing that invasive species work is underfunded, that the island committees and Hawaii Ant Lab do critical control, research, outreach, and eradication work, and that sustained resources are needed to plan effectively and respond to priority pests such as little fire ant, coconut rhinoceros beetle, and coqui frog. A lengthy exchange followed over whether the resolution was meaningful, since it would be urging the state to fund work the Legislature itself controls. Several members argued that a resolution alone has no legal effect and that funding should come through bills and appropriations instead. In response, the Department of Agriculture said its top biosecurity needs are personnel and chemicals, and noted it is building up its plant quarantine and plant pest control divisions with prior funding and HB 427. Oahu Invasive Species Committee representatives said they rely heavily on Hawaii Invasive Species Council grants, have limited soft funding, and need more stable resources; they also pointed to annual reports and prior testimony as documentation of their work. After a brief recess, the chairs announced they would pass the resolution with amendments to make it more relevant. The amendments changed the title and text to urge the counties, Congress, and other relevant agencies—not the state alone—to provide increased and sustained funding, and added language urging all of those bodies to seek federal grants. The AEN committee then voted to pass HCR 130, HD1, as amended, and the HRE committee also voted to pass it with amendments. The motion was adopted in both committees.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's what the state of California has adopted, and it's something that we will need GGRF funds to help
• us be able to reach. ...something that we will need GGRF funds to help us be able to reach that goal
• The lack of stable funding is a major concern, as local governments need reliable support to implement
• We have a real need to maintain that level of funding.
• And part of that is, you know, with a mega project like this, we do need that stable funding commitment

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.