Transcript Highlights:

• Moving to the revenue impacts, general fund state revenue reported in the partial fiscal note is a result
• through the general fund.
• This bill will have a limited impact on the general fund. Our coalition and the prime...
• This bill will have a limited impact on the general fund. Our coalition and the prime...
• Member of the lead, this bill will have a limited impact on the general fund.

Summary: The committee heard public hearings on several bills. HB 2675 would eliminate a number of state accounts and transfer remaining balances from two accounts to the general fund, while also changing how revenues in the Salary Insurance Contribution Increase Revolving Account are deposited; OFM testified in support and there was no public opposition. SHB 1903 would create a statewide low-income energy assistance program through the Department of Commerce, funded by the general fund and Climate Commitment Act revenues; supporters said it would address Washington’s underfunded and uneven energy assistance system, while utilities and rural co-ops raised concerns about cost, reporting burdens, utility authority, and implementation details. SHB 2384 would require actuarial reviews for certain continuing care retirement communities with prepaid life care contracts; residents and consumer advocates supported the added transparency, while providers opposed the added review costs and said they already pay for actuarial work. SHB 1982 would expand the ability of tribal members to vacate convictions tied to treaty rights, add OPD representation and a tribal liaison position, and then an amendment was described that would remove the liaison position and eliminate the fiscal impact; the sponsor and OPD supported the bill, and testimony emphasized correcting past treaty-rights convictions. The committee also heard SHB 2389, a broad juvenile justice bill that would expand suspended disposition options, create midpoint review hearings, reduce some robbery ranges, and address juvenile rehabilitation capacity and transfers. Supporters argued it would reduce racial disparities, favor community-based rehabilitation when safe, and improve outcomes, while prosecutors, sheriffs, counties, judges, cities, victim advocates, and some tribal law enforcement warned it would weaken accountability for serious violent offenses, increase court and local government burdens, and shift costs without funding. Several witnesses and the bill sponsor discussed proposed amendments, including removing presumptions and the mid-sentence review. The committee then heard SHB 2439, which would raise tobacco and vapor product license fees, create a responsible vendor program, add manufacturer certification and enforcement provisions, restrict certain products and sales practices, and redirect tobacco tax revenue to public health, cancer research, and youth prevention accounts; public health and prevention groups supported it, while retailers and industry representatives opposed the fee increases and some of the new restrictions. Finally, HB 2681 would sharply increase cannabis license fees and index them to inflation; OFM supported the change as aligning fees with program costs, while cannabis businesses and associations opposed or sought changes to the fee structure and CPI indexing. The committee also heard a briefing on SHB 2215, which would require the Caseload Forecast Council to forecast SNAP and state food assistance caseloads in light of upcoming federal cost-sharing changes; no questions were raised at the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's our, of course, our more significant general fund tax type; over 50 percent of our general fund
• There were some general fund appropriation changes. ...impact in this case, just the Budget Stabilization
• We are general-funded for that.
• not pulling general funds.
• We're not pulling general funds. Not every agency pays for our bills from general funds.

Committee: Joint Government Finance Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• general funds.
• general funds.
• These potential costs would be from General Fund State.
• out of the general fund or out of the accident medical aid funds.
• For fiscal impact, that would save $31.6 million general fund beginning in fiscal year 2027 per year.

Summary: The committee began with a public hearing on Substitute House Bill 1592, which would change how state public defense funds are distributed and, in the substitute version, keep current law on state funding responsibility while revising the allocation formula. Staff explained the bill would shift county and city distributions to a pro rata, caseload-based model, allow very low-density counties to request OPD to provide some or all public defense services, require additional data collection and reporting, and direct OPD to study caseload reductions and retention. Representative Peterson said the bill is meant to create a better structure for future state support of indigent defense without the very large cost of the original proposal. Testimony from counties, cities, OPD, defenders, and local officials was strongly supportive, emphasizing a statewide public defense crisis, rising local costs, staffing shortages, and the need for a fairer funding model. The committee then heard Substitute House Bill 1742 on environmentally sustainable urban design and Substitute House Bill 1906 on water system regulation and water rates. HB 1742 would create a center in Ecology to promote sustainable urban design, fund design competitions and grants, and establish an advisory council; the sponsor said the bill reflects a desire to support a pilot project through alternative funding, and there was no public testimony. HB 1906 would require more planning and notice for Group A water systems, add customer notice and right-of-first-refusal provisions for some ownership changes, and direct the UTC to consider external funding sources, capital planning, and rate smoothing when setting water rates. Water utility and PUD witnesses supported the goal of improving transparency and consolidation of failing small systems, while noting the substitute reduced some fiscal concerns. The committee also heard HB 2248 on Secretary of State corporate and charity filings, HB 2438 creating the SEED scholarship for early childhood education students, and HB 2515 addressing emerging large energy use facilities such as data centers. HB 2248 would redirect part of annual filing fees to the Secretary of State revolving fund, require initial reports from nonprofits and LLPs, and change trademark certificate procedures; the fiscal note showed modest revenue losses, and the division supported restoring the fee split for operational funding. HB 2438 would transfer $10 million annually from the GET account to fund scholarships and wraparound services for early childhood education degree seekers, with testimony from early learning advocates and a student describing workforce shortages and personal financial barriers. HB 2515 drew extensive testimony both for and against: supporters said it would protect ratepayers, water resources, and grid reliability by requiring tariffs, reporting, clean-energy requirements, and a fee on large energy users; opponents argued it singled out data centers, could hurt investment and jobs, and included unrelated labor and procurement provisions. After public testimony, the committee moved into executive-session briefing on several bills and amendments, including HB 1903 on statewide low-income energy assistance, HB 1909 on a court unification task force, HB 1982 on vacating certain convictions tied to treaty Indian rights, HB 2034 on LEOFF Plan 1 retirement changes, HB 2105 on employer notice of federal I-9 audits, HB 2210 on ranked-choice voting, HB 2215 on Climate Commitment Act fuel supplier obligations, and HB 2271 on post-consumer recycled content requirements. Staff summarized proposed substitutes and amendments, with several changes aimed at reducing or shifting fiscal impacts, narrowing agency duties, or striking provisions entirely.

Transcript Highlights:

• to the General Fund.
• General Fund priorities.
• against its other General Fund priorities.
• that with state transportation funds rather than General Fund.
• And so those could also be funded by General Fund dollars.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's our general fund revenue.
• You see the impact of that today runs about $90 million on the general fund.
• into the general fund?
• will now be directed to the general fund.
• Like I said, we have general fund, federal funds, and then dedicated funds, and dedicated funds are the

Summary: The committee received a broad budget overview from Legislative Services staff on the state’s fiscal position, focusing on the general fund, structural balance, cash reconciliation, and the governor’s budget recommendations for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. Staff explained that projected revenues are below the current budgeted level, creating a need for either budget reductions or the use of cash balances and reserve funds to maintain balance. They reviewed major drivers of spending growth over recent years, including Medicaid expansion, public schools, the State Public Defender, IT services, and water resources, and noted that these statutory and ongoing obligations are crowding out other spending. Members also discussed the governor’s proposed use of interest earnings and reserve balances from several funds, the Budget Stabilization Fund cap, and the policy question of whether changes to fund interest allocations would require legislation or could be handled through appropriation language. The committee also reviewed current-year adjustments, including supplementals, rescissions, deficiency warrants, and the governor’s proposed holdbacks. Specific items discussed included public school enrollment adjustments, the proposed rescission of Empowering Parents funding, Medicaid growth and provider rate changes, Department of Corrections costs tied to inmate placement and medical services, invasive species treatment funding, and a possible tax conformity impact tied to federal law changes. Members asked about fire suppression deficiency funding, the use of reserve balances, and the difference between current-law and governor-recommended spending levels. Staff emphasized that the governor’s budget relies on short-term money and reserve transfers to smooth the current deficit, while the legislature must decide whether to follow that approach or make deeper structural changes. Later, staff provided an overview of the budget hearing process and the Legislative Budget Book, explaining the standard reports, agency organization charts, fund analyses, performance measures, and five-year snapshots that committees will use during hearings. Another presentation clarified the difference between deficiency warrants and supplemental appropriations, noting that deficiency warrants cover certain last-year expenses authorized by statute, while supplementals adjust the current-year appropriation and can apply to general, dedicated, or federal funds. The committee then heard a detailed presentation on state health insurance costs, including rising medical claims, reserve balances, the 80/20 employee-employer cost split, and projected FY 2027 premium increases. Members asked about school district participation in the state plan, the role of the insurance carrier contract, and whether broader participation could lower costs. No votes were taken during the meeting, and the committee adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The $159 million General Fund estimate reflects the full-year impact of the proposal.
• The $26 million General Fund estimate reflects the full-year impact of the proposal.
• The $26 million General Fund estimate reflects the full-year impact of the proposal.
• of that being General Fund.
• There would be no General Fund impact under this proposal.

Summary: The hearing began with opening remarks on the Governor’s May Revision for child care and human services, with committee members and advocates stressing that the budget should not be balanced on the backs of low-income families, children, and providers. Legislative members and public witnesses strongly opposed the proposed suspension of the child care COLA, reductions to the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program, and the lack of codified rate reform tied to the alternative methodology. Several speakers also urged more support for providers affected by the Eaton fire and other disasters, and called for child care to be funded at the true cost of care and for additional slots to be restored. Administration, LAO, and Department of Education staff described the child care proposal as maintaining existing funding levels while adding administrative resources to prepare for federally required prospective payment changes and single-rate reform. The administration said the May Revision would suspend the 2025–26 COLA and reduce Bridge Program funding to align with utilization, while the LAO raised questions about the size and purpose of the proposed rate-reform and prospective-payment funding and recommended rejecting a Department of Technology exemption. CDE supported continued early education investments but said it would need additional resources if prospective pay were extended to state preschool, and it objected to a proposed reallocation of preschool funds for inclusive education grants. The committee then moved to the IHSS portion of the May Revision. DSS outlined five major proposals: capping provider work hours at 50 per week, eliminating IHSS for undocumented adults age 19 and older, shifting certain Community First Choice reassessment penalties to counties, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test as a conforming IHSS reduction, and automating the termination of IHSS when Medi-Cal eligibility ends. DSS also discussed funding to implement a federal HCBS access rule and a separate reassessment of IHSS administrative methodology that found counties would need additional administrative funding. Finance said the proposals were intended to slow program growth and improve sustainability, while the LAO said it was still analyzing the package and raised concerns about implementation, county workload, and the potential loss of services. Committee members and public commenters criticized the IHSS cuts, especially the overtime cap and the elimination of services for undocumented adults and people affected by the asset test. Advocates argued that IHSS workers and recipients depend on these services, that county administration is already underfunded, and that the proposals could destabilize vulnerable consumers. The chair closed by saying the committee would continue to fight for child care and would not pause on child care, and the meeting recessed before moving on to the remaining May Revision items.

Transcript Highlights:

• fund</c><00:04:30.160><c> spending</c><00:04:30.479><c> is</c> horizon, state general fund spending
• the</c> projected general fund spending on the projected general fund spending on the program<00:04:
• , about $10.6 billion through the general fund, and the healthcare access fund funds its programs by
• So nonprofits pay a 1% tax in the access fund; for-profits pay a 2% tax in the general fund. >> All right
• So, nonprofits pay a 1% tax in the access fund; for-profits pay a 2% tax in the general fund.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• of $1.1 billion of these new General Fund costs.
• , a net increase of 1.1 billion of these new general fund costs.
• And that's because most of that cost falls on the General Fund.
• General Fund, some of the cost growth has been borne by other fund sources.
• funding that applies generally to SNAP.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the impacts of H.R. 1 on California’s safety net, focusing on Medi-Cal and CalFresh. The chair and vice chair framed the issue as a major federal disruption that would reduce benefits and shift costs to the state, counties, hospitals, and other local systems. The first panel included the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, the UC Berkeley Labor Center, and the Food Research and Action Center, each describing projected enrollment losses, higher state and county costs, and implementation challenges. The LAO outlined H.R. 1’s main changes: new and expanded work requirements, more frequent eligibility redeterminations, restrictions on certain non-citizen eligibility, and financing changes affecting provider taxes and federal matching rates. The LAO estimated that 1 to 2 million people could be disenrolled from Medi-Cal and more than 600,000 could lose CalFresh, with additional costs from reduced federal support and possible state and county administrative burdens. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s budget includes about $1.4 billion General Fund in 2026-27 to respond to H.R. 1, with larger out-year reductions in federal funds and projected Medi-Cal caseload losses of up to 2 million by 2029-30. The UC Berkeley Labor Center projected up to 3 million Californians could lose full-scope Medi-Cal by 2028 when H.R. 1 is combined with state budget changes, while noting the state could choose policies that would reduce some of those losses. The Food Research and Action Center warned that CalFresh cuts and time limits would increase hunger, worsen health outcomes, and strain local economies and emergency systems. Members questioned the witnesses about procedural disenrollments, regional variation, the overall growth in Medi-Cal spending, the future of the MCO tax, the CalFresh error rate, and the downstream effects on hospitals and county indigent care. Several senators argued that the federal law was driven by tax cuts for high-income earners and would disproportionately harm low-income Californians, immigrants, and communities of color. Administration witnesses said some impacts are still being analyzed, that counties and departments are working on implementation, and that the Legislature may need to use statute, reporting, and oversight tools as federal guidance develops. No votes or formal actions were taken during this portion of the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• in essentially general funds and the funds that we hold for operations.
• But again, as of right now, our general funds, operating funds, they're not meant, they're not designed
• > funds,</c><00:24:02.960><c> operating</c><00:24:03.440><c> funds,</c> the our general funds, operating
• funds, the our general funds, operating funds, they're<00:24:04.080><c> not</c><00:24:04.480><c> they're
• It's it's impacting raise funds from.

Summary: The committee held a work session on HB 302, which would add precious metals and digital assets as potential investment options. State Treasurer Monica Misipelli said she took no position on the bill and did not see an immediate fiscal impact or operational problem, but explained that the state’s operating funds and rainy day fund require liquidity and stability, so they would not be suitable for volatile assets like precious metals or digital assets. She said the only funds that might potentially use such investments would be certain trust funds held in perpetuity, which are managed by an outside investment advisor under a contract and investment policy. Members asked about the treasurer’s current investment practices, including the types of funds managed, the role and discretion of the investment advisor, the state’s risk profile, and whether the bill would affect existing authority. Misipelli said the office follows RSA 11 and related statutes, with different objectives ranging from conservative to aggressive depending on the fund, and that the advisor meets with the office regularly, with formal performance reviews on a quarterly basis. She also said the office recently centralized management of about 40 trust accounts totaling roughly $60 million into five combined portfolios under a five-year contract with an RFP-selected vendor. When asked whether precious metals or digital assets are already indirectly available through mutual funds, she said that was possible for some mutual funds, but she was not certain about digital assets. Representative Ammon, the bill’s sponsor, said similar legislation had passed the Oklahoma House, the Texas House and Senate, and had advanced in Arizona. He argued the bill was intended to give the treasurer more tools to help balance portfolios and hedge inflation, noting concerns about federal debt and inflation. No vote was taken in the excerpt, and the chair ended the questioning after thanking the treasurer and asking her to remain available in case further questions arose.

Transcript Highlights:

• This reflects $96.3 million ongoing General Fund.
• This totals $240.8 million one-time General Fund for UC.
• This totals $240.8 million one-time General Fund for UC.
• I'm interested in what the UC general funds are.
• It's just funding to the system. Just generally.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, chaired by Assemblymember Alvarez, held a hearing focused on University of California budget issues. The committee reviewed UC core operations funding, enrollment trends, federal funding threats, Title IX implementation, and basic needs support. Major themes included the end of the Governor’s multi-year UC compact, the state’s fiscal outlook, UC’s enrollment growth, and the potential impacts of federal policy changes on research, health care, and student aid. On core funding, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to continue compact-related support, defer some payments, and authorize a cash-flow loan. The LAO recommended a smaller or no base increase, earmarking some funds for capital renewal, retiring deferrals when possible, avoiding new compact commitments, and funding UC annually rather than through compacts. UC argued that the compact has supported enrollment growth, student services, and operating costs, but said campuses face rising expenses, structural deficits, and limited reserves. Members questioned the effects of deferrals on students and discussed the need to prioritize less harmful reductions if cuts become necessary. The enrollment panel focused on UC’s growth in California resident enrollment and the nonresident replacement plan at Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego. The LAO recommended maintaining the current enrollment target, funding enrollment separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident replacement plan, and holding enrollment flat in 2027-28. UC said it has already met compact enrollment goals, grown California undergraduate enrollment by about 18,800 students, and that further growth depends on ongoing state support. The committee also discussed the cost of enrollment growth, possible differential nonresident tuition, and a reporting request for UC to analyze the nonresident replacement approach; the motion to adopt supplemental reporting language passed. The hearing also covered federal funding risks, with the LAO and UC warning that federal changes could affect research grants, medical center reimbursement, and student financial aid. UC said research cancellations and suspensions are disrupting labs and graduate student support, while federal health policy changes could increase uncompensated care at UC hospitals. In the Title IX update, UC described its systemwide civil rights structure, annual student training, and campus support offices, and members praised the work while asking about ongoing concerns and intersegmental collaboration. The final basic-needs item began with Finance stating the Governor’s budget does not change ongoing support, but the transcript cuts off before further discussion or action.

Transcript Highlights:

• on the General Fund.
• out with General Fund resiliency over time.
• General Fund—relative to the impact.
• Fund with a backfill from the General Fund.
• Special fund does not help backfill the General Fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• on the General Fund.
• general fund—relative to the impact.
• Fund with a backfill from the General Fund.
• Fund with a backfill from the General Fund.
• Special fund does not help backfill the General Fund.

Summary: The subcommittee met to discuss budget issues related to vacant positions across several natural resources and environmental departments, with no votes taken and all items held open for a future hearing. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance explained the administration’s proposal to eliminate about 6,000 vacant positions statewide, including roughly 293 positions in the departments before the committee, as a way to capture salary savings and reduce flexible funding tied up in vacancies. The LAO recommended retaining special-funded positions, while noting that eliminating General Fund positions would reduce savings. Finance argued that vacancy levels have remained steady statewide, that departments need flexibility to manage operations and hard-to-fill jobs, and that some vacant positions can be reclassified to higher-priority work. Members raised concerns that many of the proposed eliminations would affect core public-safety, permitting, and environmental-protection functions. The Department of Fish and Wildlife said the cuts would affect permitting, environmental protection, and law enforcement, while State Parks said its proposed ranger reductions were chosen from historically vacant, hard-to-fill positions and would still leave many vacancies to fill through the academy. The Coastal Commission said its positions supported sea-level rise planning under SB 272. The Department of Pesticide Regulation and DTSC said the reductions would affect multiple program areas, though Finance said the special funds involved were not in structural deficit and the cuts could help avoid future fee increases. The State Water Resources Control Board said its proposed reductions were spread across programs, with public-health functions protected as much as possible. The committee then heard an overview from the State Water Resources Control Board on its responsibilities for water quality, water rights, drinking water, and funding for water infrastructure. Chair Joaquin Esquivel described ongoing work on the Bay-Delta Plan update, the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes voluntary agreements, and the need to actively administer water rights. Members also discussed the board’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, which narrowed federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The board requested $2.6 million and 12 permanent positions to address resulting permitting and enforcement gaps; the LAO said the request met its high bar for new proposals and was supported by the board’s data and reporting.

Transcript Highlights:

• This reflects $96.3 million ongoing General Fund.
• This totals $240.8 million one-time General Fund for UC.
• This totals $240.8 million one-time General Fund for UC.
• I'm interested in what the UC general funds are.
• I'm interested in what the UC general funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• is being used to fund a portion of the Cal Fire General Fund shift.
• , not General Fund.
• General Fund money... ...all General Fund spending for labor and workforce development, all legislative
• , all General Fund money for transportation, and all General Fund money for UC and CSU, we would still
• Did that take the place of general fund funding for those projects?

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard opening remarks on the Governor’s 2026-27 budget, which the chair described as roughly balanced in the budget year but still facing large out-year structural deficits. The vice chair criticized the revenue assumptions as overly optimistic and stressed the need to review recent program expansions and address the state’s $20 billion federal unemployment insurance debt. The Department of Finance said the budget is a “workload” plan with about $350 billion in total spending, $23 billion in reserves, a projected $2.9 billion budget-year deficit, and out-year gaps above $20 billion, while the LAO warned of downside revenue risk tied to stock market volatility and urged earlier action on the structural deficit rather than waiting for May. Finance and the LAO discussed major budget components, including Proposition 98 funding, higher education base increases for UC and CSU, climate and wildfire spending, a new ZEV incentive, child care COLAs, and tax proposals involving marketplace facilitators, renewable aviation fuel, and an extension of the California Competes tax credit. Members raised concerns about proposed Medi-Cal and CalFresh changes tied to federal HR1 impacts, the MCO tax extension, hospital finances, county costs, and the decision not to backfill all federal funding losses. Finance said the administration is not in a position to replace all lost federal funds, but wants to work with the Legislature on priorities and timing before the May Revision. Several senators used the hearing to preview subcommittee priorities and request more detail on spending growth, reserves, and program cuts. Topics included homelessness funding, Care Court throughput, wildfire and climate investments, AB 617, data centers, the judicial branch’s facilities backlog, displaced workers, transit funding, and preparations for the 2028 Olympics and Paralympics. No budget action or vote was taken at this hearing; the committee mainly received presentations and member questions, with public comment scheduled later.

Transcript Highlights:

• to the General Fund.
• General Fund priorities.
• that with state transportation funds rather than General Fund.
• that with state transportation funds rather than General Fund.
• And so those could also be funded by General Fund.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 held an informational hearing on the Governor’s May Revision proposals for labor, public safety/judiciary, and transportation, and no votes were taken. In Part A on labor, the Employment Development Department described funding for EDD Next document management work, updated UI loan interest costs, disability insurance and paid family leave benefit increases, WIOA adjustments, UI and school employee benefit changes, an EMT training reappropriation, and a technical correction tied to an EDD Next reversion. PERB discussed reduced funding requests for AB 288 due to litigation and a proposal to implement AB 1 covering legislative employees. DIR presented proposals for legal unit reclassifications, two major IT modernization projects, a new Cal/OSHA emerging technologies unit, a COIA reappropriation, and trailer bill language requiring electronic payment of employer assessments and removing a salary cap for the DWC administrative director. CalHR proposed consolidating employee assistance services into a statewide contract with enhanced support for first responders, and CalPERS and CalSTRS presented budget adjustments tied to investment costs, state contributions, and benefit overpayments. Members focused heavily on the unemployment insurance debt and interest payments, asking why the administration had no concrete plan to pay down principal. Finance and LAO explained that the state’s UI tax structure has long been insufficient and that any long-term solution would need to address both the outstanding federal loan and the structural imbalance in employer taxes. Questions also centered on EDD Next costs and timelines, with the chair asking for clearer long-term project cost estimates and Finance noting that future maintenance and operations costs will continue after implementation. On DIR’s emerging technologies unit, members asked whether it would address AI-driven workplace harms; DIR said the unit would focus on physical workplace safety issues involving AI, robotics, autonomous equipment, and related guardrails, while LAO noted broader labor-practice questions would likely fall outside Cal/OSHA’s scope. In the CalPERS discussion, members raised concerns about transparency in private equity and external management fees, while CalPERS said higher fees reflect a strategy of greater private-market and active-management exposure and are offset by higher net returns. Members urged more information on specific investments and future reporting. For CalSTRS, Finance presented routine contribution and overpayment adjustments, but members also raised broader transparency concerns that CalSTRS staff said they would follow up on separately. Public comment in Part A was dominated by strong support for an immigrant worker emergency relief fund, along with support for apprenticeship and workforce proposals and PERB staffing. The chair and members said they would follow up on where the immigrant relief proposal should be considered, noting it may belong in another policy area. The hearing then moved into Part B with an overview of Judicial Branch-related May Revision items, including court interpreter funding, appellate court security, workload cap changes, lactation room implementation delays, and a reduction to the state court facility construction backfill.

Transcript Highlights:

• You said that you're having a $13.9 cut to your general revenue, which the hb1 yes what does that impact
• by. 44 percent and impacting our ability to carry out our mission effectively. these funds will significantly
• In addition, the loss of institutional housing funds significantly are impact our ability to attract
• Can you elaborate if if that were funded, how large of an impact would the Behavioral Health Institute
• The $30 million in general revenue and then the others, the $14.8 million are... pass through funds from

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Article III

Transcript Highlights:

• The State of California Guidelines for Evaluating Impacts of Generative AI on Vulnerable and Marginal
• So the Governor's budget includes a 5 million one-time general fund augmentation for the College Corps
• expanding or creating new programs funded by the general fund as in a deficit situation that essentially
• Since these funds are all now general funds, we just have to make sure that there are agreements that
• And then our board did take action just at last month's meeting to reserve the remaining general fund

Transcript Highlights:

• to offset General Fund costs.
• , supported with $742 million General Fund, a slight increase in our General Fund of 2%, and an overall
• And then generally, the way the funding was structured, it wasn't enough funding to fund the entire build
• And then generally, the way the funding was structured, it wasn't enough funding to fund the entire build
• I think one thing to highlight is these positions want to be funded with General Fund.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held an informational hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, focusing first on the Commission on Behavioral Health, then EMSA, and then the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). The Department of Finance said the state faces a third consecutive deficit and that the May Revision includes difficult trade-offs, including proposed eliminations or reversions of some behavioral health and public health funds. The LAO echoed concern about the structural deficit and said it was still awaiting some budget details before offering a full analysis. For the Commission on Behavioral Health, Finance proposed eliminating $20 million in Mental Health Wellness Act funds, arguing the money would help offset General Fund costs and noting future Proposition 1 innovation funding. The commission strongly opposed the cut, saying it would eliminate or delay launch-ready grants for early childhood supports, full-service partnerships, and peer respite, and would eventually end ongoing grant programming. Several advocates and commissioners testified that the funds support underserved communities and that Proposition 1 is not a substitute for the existing programs. The chair asked Finance to look for alternatives, but no vote was taken. EMSA presented mostly technical budget adjustments: increased authority for the California Poison Control System, a correction to EMSIS funding, and a reappropriation for enterprise services and data management. CDPH then reviewed a broader set of May Revision proposals, including reversions from the California Reducing Disparities Project, workforce development, STD prevention, hepatitis C prevention, hospice, and extreme heat funding, as well as a new generative AI pilot for health facility survey reporting. Members raised concerns about cuts to CRDP and gender health equity programs, especially because many grants are mid-contract and serve underserved communities; CDPH said the reversions were part of solving the deficit and that CRDP had been successful, while also clarifying that abortion.ca.gov would not be eliminated. Public comment was overwhelmingly opposed to the CRDP and related cuts, with many speakers describing the programs as life-saving and cost-effective. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's our status of the general fund.
• That's our most significant general fund tax type; over 50 percent of our general fund revenues come
• We are general funded for that.
• not pulling general funds.
• We're not pulling general funds. Not every agency pays for our bills from general funds.

Committee: Joint Government Finance Committee

Summary: The Government Finance Committee met with new leadership and approved the December 11 minutes. The committee first received an update from the Office of Management and Budget on the state general fund and major special funds. OMB reported revenues were tracking very close to forecast, with an estimated ending general fund balance of about $397 million, higher than previously expected. Staff also reviewed balances in the budget stabilization fund, legacy fund, foundation aid stabilization fund, social services fund, and strategic investment and improvements fund, along with oil tax collections and the current revenue picture. Legislative Council staff then summarized the special session budget changes and noted the updated beginning balance increased the projected ending balance for the next biennium. The Tax Department presented taxable sales and purchases data by county and industry, showing overall sales tax activity remained strong, with retail trade the largest sector and several counties posting notable gains. Commissioner Kraschis then reviewed federal tax changes under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and estimated their impact on North Dakota income tax collections, explaining that the figures were compared to the 2025 baseline and would be incorporated into future forecasts. Members asked about the overtime and tip exclusions, the senior standard deduction, and the primary residence property tax credit application count, which was running ahead of last year at more than 154,000 applications. The committee also heard from the Department of Transportation on fee schedules, with members focusing on driver’s license fees and the fact that current fees cover only about half of program costs, meaning the highway fund subsidizes the remainder. DOT also reported on specialty plate activity, including nearly 3,900 blackout plates issued, and noted increased state fleet usage. The Information Technology Department explained its internal service fund rate-setting process and discussed possible billing simplification, including annual billing and improved invoice detail. OMB also provided data on leased office space in the Bismarck-Mandan area and state workforce counts, and Legislative Council updated the committee on legislative branch space planning. Finally, subcommittee reports noted continued work on fixed-route transit funding and regional jail capacity, including Burleigh-Morton’s new DOCR housing wing and ongoing overcrowding in state correctional facilities. No formal votes beyond the minutes approval were taken, and the meeting adjourned with the next meeting set for June 25.

Transcript Highlights:

• They memorialize generations and their impacts to our society for history, for storytelling, for art.
• They memorialize generations and their impacts to our society for history, for storytelling, for art.
• The impact of our terminated federal funds to California Humanities has a negative The impact of our
• The documentary space is just not that well funded generally.
• These funds impact communities like mine.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on how federal actions are affecting arts, culture, humanities, libraries, museums, and creative industries in California. Chair Ben Allen, Vice Chair Chris Ward, and other members described the moment as a crisis, citing proposed or implemented cuts to the NEA, NEH, and IMLS, grant terminations, leadership removals, and budget proposals to zero out major cultural agencies. Members emphasized that arts and humanities are both culturally essential and economically significant, and they framed the hearing as a chance to hear impacts on the ground and consider state and federal responses. Testimony from Aaron Harky of Americans for the Arts and Jolie Fisher of SAG-AFTRA highlighted the scale of the problem. Harky said federal rescissions and policy changes are causing immediate financial harm, forcing hiring freezes, program cancellations, and emergency fundraising, while disproportionately hurting rural, immigrant, elder, and small community organizations. She noted California’s creative economy generates hundreds of billions of dollars and urged support for restoring state arts funding, museum grants, and legislation such as SB 456 and AB 3149, along with federal measures like the Charitable Act and Performing Arts Tax Parity Act. Fisher focused on film and television production, saying runaway production, outdated tax rules, and weak federal IP protections are harming workers and local businesses; she urged federal production incentives, tax parity for performers, and stronger protections against AI misuse of artists’ voices and likenesses. State agency leaders Rick Noguchi of California Humanities, Greg Lucas of the State Library, and Danielle Purcell of the California Arts Council described direct impacts from federal funding disruptions. Noguchi said California Humanities lost NEH support immediately, putting grants and documentary projects at risk and prompting possible litigation and appeals. Lucas said the State Library initially faced a major IMLS funding loss but has since had part of the money restored, though still with a reduced amount that will limit local assistance. Purcell said the California Arts Council is assessing terminated grants and fielding urgent calls from grantees, while continuing to distribute state arts funds and track the damage. Members asked about bipartisan support, business coalition-building, economic measurement, AI threats to creative work, and the implications of federal leadership changes; no votes were taken, but the hearing ended with calls for continued advocacy, legal action, and possible state investment to stabilize the sector.