Transcript Highlights:

• We know we have to bring it through the legislature.
• We know we have to bring it through the legislature.
• So that, I know, is partly on us, the legislature.
• It's not the language that we have passed in the legislature.
• Is that a prudent path for us to be pursuing as a legislature?

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Summary: The Joint Committee on Ways and Means held a public hearing in Lawrence focused on the governor’s proposed FY27 budget for education and local aid. Opening remarks from Senator Pavel Payano, Representative Pat Duffy, and local leaders emphasized the importance of education funding for Lawrence and other Gateway Cities, with Acting Mayor Giovanni Rodriguez and Superintendent Ralph Carrero highlighting the city’s high-need student population, Chapter 70 and Student Opportunity Act funding, early college and career pathways, and the need for sustained support to close achievement gaps. The Education Secretariat testified in support of the budget, with Acting Secretary Amy Kershaw outlining investments in early literacy, universal pre-K, student mental health, school meals, high school redesign, higher education affordability, and early childhood systems. Commissioner Noi Ortega described higher education proposals including expanded free community college, continued free tuition at public four-year institutions, student success funding, early college and dual enrollment investments, and the Bright Act and Drive Act. Commissioner Pedro Martinez detailed K-12 proposals such as full Student Opportunity Act funding, increased Chapter 70 aid, special education circuit breaker funding, transportation aid, literacy initiatives, and a new Accelerating Achievement Initiative aimed at schools with the greatest needs. Commissioner Kershaw also described early education proposals including funding for C3, child care financial assistance, CPPI, workforce supports, and administrative funding restoration. Committee members questioned the administration about the pending local contribution formula study, the final year of Student Opportunity Act implementation, and the need to address health care and other cost drivers in school funding. Officials said the local contribution report is expected by the end of June and that a draft will be shared for public comment after data analysis is complete. Members also raised concerns about Chapter 70 disparities between districts and urged a broader review of the formula. In response, the commissioners said the Student Opportunity Act narrowed funding gaps but further work is needed, and they pointed to the new achievement initiative, literacy efforts, and early college expansion as ways to improve outcomes. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• the legislature is more critical than ever as we face new and ongoing challenges at the federal level
• I think right now we're doing quite well in terms of the resources that the legislature has given us.
• Quite well in terms of the resources that the legislature has given us. Thank you very much.
• And what should the legislature know about the kinds of funding you may...
• You know, we know this is a tough one, and when we talk about HHS in the legislature, I know many of

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Summary: The hearing was a Joint Committee on Ways and Means budget session on health and human services, held in Clinton and opened with remarks from the House and Senate co-chairs, local officials, and committee members. The chairs emphasized the importance of hearing directly from agencies about the Commonwealth’s health care and human services budget needs, thanked Clinton for hosting, and introduced the day’s panels, beginning with the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) and then MassHealth. Secretary Kiame Mahania presented Governor Healey’s FY27 EOHHS budget, describing a $33.7 billion request driven largely by non-discretionary cost growth, caseload increases, and federal uncertainty. He highlighted targeted investments in foster parent reimbursement, family resource centers, maternal health, food assistance, immigrant legal services, and workforce rates, while warning that federal cuts and the Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act could strip billions from state health funding. Members questioned him about primary care shortages, federal program integrity audits, ConnectorCare, regional health disparities, and the proposed cap on adult dental coverage; he defended the cap as a difficult but necessary cost-control measure and said the administration would continue cooperating with federal partners. Undersecretary Michael Levine then testified for MassHealth, saying the agency faces two major challenges: rapid cost growth and looming federal changes. He outlined a $22.7 billion gross MassHealth budget and proposed actions including a moratorium on new expansions, capping adult dental benefits at $1,000, ending GLP-1 coverage for weight loss only, reducing care management spending to peer-state levels, and convening work groups to slow growth in personal care attendant, adult foster care, and adult day health programs. He also warned that federal policy changes could cause about 300,000 residents to lose coverage by 2030 and reduce federal revenue by about $3.5 billion, and said MassHealth would use outreach and systems changes to help eligible members stay covered. Members raised concerns about the impact of these cuts on homeless care, preventive services, dental access, GLP-1s, and regional hospital and specialist shortages, while Levine argued the proposals were aimed at preserving core coverage and sustainability.

Transcript Highlights:

• We urge the Legislature to move swiftly in three key areas.
• And then in 1991, the state Legislature realigned programs and created And then in 1991, the state Legislature
• We echo the call for the legislature to pursue progressive revenue solutions.
• We do urge the legislature...
• We urge the legislature to protect Medi-Cal for all.

Summary: The subcommittee heard an extended briefing on the impacts of H.R. 1 on Medi-Cal and CalFresh, followed by testimony from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and county officials. DHCS described major Medi-Cal changes in H.R. 1, including work/community engagement requirements, six-month redeterminations, reduced federal matching for some emergency services, narrower immigrant eligibility, reduced retroactive coverage, and limits on provider taxes and directed payments. CDSS outlined CalFresh changes, especially the expanded able-bodied adults without dependents time limit, reduced exemptions and waivers, and the new federal-state-county administrative cost split. Both departments emphasized implementation plans, automation, outreach, and county coordination, while acknowledging significant expected coverage losses and administrative burden. The LAO and an independent policy expert discussed how H.R. 1 could increase demand on county indigent care systems and public hospitals as people lose Medi-Cal. They reviewed the history of county indigent care, 1991 realignment, and AB 85, explaining that counties already rely on a patchwork of funding and that current realignment revenues are often used for public health rather than indigent care. They warned that counties may face large increases in uninsured residents, with wide variation in how counties respond, and raised concerns about equity, financing, and whether a more standardized state-county program should be created. Committee members pressed witnesses on county funding, exemptions, homelessness, older adults, undocumented residents, and the effect of administrative burden versus true ineligibility. County representatives from Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Tulare, and San Bernardino described the expected local impacts and asked for additional state support. They said H.R. 1 would drive major losses in Medi-Cal and CalFresh enrollment, increase uncompensated care, strain eligibility staff, and worsen homelessness and food insecurity. Several counties urged the Legislature to fund eligibility workers, preserve enrollment, and consider a CalFresh match waiver; Santa Clara and San Bernardino also cited local tax measures and staffing reductions already underway. No formal vote or committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• When the Legislature gave us the override and restored When the Legislature gave us the override and
• It increased from the legislature.
• The Legislature appropriated $4.8 million.
• I want to thank the legislature again for the hourly rate increase that you put in the legislature last
• I've been in the legislature.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Keywords: 1212, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Number one, we in the Legislature really... ...approach that I'm looking at.
• If the Legislature has certain goals or preferences for that program, now is the time.
• That if the Legislature has certain goals or preferences for that program, now is the time for the Legislature
• She really was one of the real champions in the Legislature.
• But it's only one bond that made it through the Legislature, and that was this climate bond.

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 those, the Legislature does not have control over.
• There are great things that the legislature has done.
• There are great things that the legislature has done.
• The Legislature aided in that by adding extension grants to the current proposals.
• The Legislature creates a new program, and a new report goes along with it.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• At the moment, the university has been working with the Legislature on the bond.
• It was line-itemed by the Legislature and it did not grow.
• And during that time, we saw a slight decrease. ...itemed by the Legislature and did not grow.
• Alternatively, the Legislature could decide to provide no base increase.
• And finally, we recommend the Legislature avoid entering into a new multi-year compact agreement.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education held its first 2026 hearing on higher education, focusing on UC and CSU system updates, student housing, enrollment, and core operations. In opening remarks, the chair noted recent state fiscal stress, the prior rejection of proposed UC/CSU cuts, and the Governor’s proposed 5% ongoing compact increases. UC President James B. Milliken and CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia described the systems’ public value, research and workforce roles, and the impact of federal actions on grants, financial aid, and campus operations. Both also emphasized Title IX and civil rights efforts; CSU said it had implemented nearly all state auditor recommendations and was on track to finish the remaining one, while UC highlighted its systemwide civil rights and Title IX offices. Both leaders said federal investigations, grant cancellations, and litigation demands were consuming staff time and money, with UC reporting more than 200 grants lost or affected and CSU citing more than $161 million in lost grants and more than 1,600 grants affected overall. The committee then heard on student housing. Finance and LAO staff said the Governor’s budget made no major new housing proposal but continued support for the Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program. CSU reported 12 supported projects that will add about 5,047 beds, most below market rate, with four already open and seven more expected this year; it also said it has about 68,000 beds systemwide, a 92% occupancy rate, and ongoing emergency housing support. UC said the program has supported seven UC projects and two joint community college projects, adding more than 7,000 beds total, but nearly 10,000 UC students were on housing waitlists at the start of fall 2025. UC asked for additional state support, including possible bond funding and a statutory change to allow UC participation in public-private partnership housing projects. Members discussed rapid rehousing, student homelessness, faculty and staff housing, and community college housing partnerships, with both systems describing existing emergency beds and support services. On enrollment, LAO recommended maintaining UC’s 2026-27 resident undergraduate target, funding enrollment growth separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident reduction plan, and holding UC flat in 2027-28. For CSU, LAO recommended revising the 2026-27 target downward to reflect current projections, funding growth separately, and holding 2027-28 flat. CSU said it had rebounded from COVID declines, now exceeds its funded target by about 3,000 FTE, and is shifting about $89 million and 10,000 FTE spots from lower-demand campuses to higher-demand ones while developing turnaround plans for seven campuses with sustained enrollment declines, including Sonoma State. CSU also described direct admissions, transfer success pathways, and new degree programs aimed at workforce needs. UC said it had surpassed its compact enrollment goals, planned to add 2,721 California undergraduates in 2026-27, and was seeking $5.5 million for health professional programs. Members raised concerns about underprepared freshmen, K-12 alignment, nonresident caps at UC San Diego, deferred maintenance, ROTC access, and the need for stronger turnaround plans and teacher preparation pipelines. The final item on core operations addressed the Governor’s proposal to defer 3% base funding again, moving the one-time deferral to 2027-28 and allowing short-term zero-interest loans to cover it.

Transcript Highlights:

• I can't just approve a program through the legislature.
• And if so, what do you think this Legislature can do to address it?
• So first focusing on 2024-25 we recommend that the Legislature have the judicial branch share...
• So to address that, we actually recommend the Legislature modify the language in two key ways.
• I would urge the Legislature to support the $40 an hour raise. Thank you for your comments.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on Proposition 36 and its implementation, with judicial and budget officials describing it as a major shift from misdemeanor to felony processing for repeat drug possession and certain theft offenses. Witnesses explained that the law creates a treatment-mandated felony process that can lead to dismissal if a defendant completes treatment, but also requires evaluations, court monitoring, and potentially long, open-ended supervision. Judicial representatives said the new law is already generating large numbers of filings, creating workload, staffing, courtroom, and facility pressures, and that access to treatment beds, housing, and evaluation capacity is limiting participation. Several speakers emphasized that collaborative courts are effective but are not a perfect fit for Prop. 36 because those programs are typically probation-based and serve different risk/need populations. Court officials from San Bernardino and Orange counties said the impacts vary by county but are severe, with some counties seeing hundreds or more filings in a short period and others moving more slowly to build treatment infrastructure first. They argued that Prop. 36 is effectively an unfunded mandate unless the state provides more resources for judges, staff, facilities, treatment, housing, and supervision. The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that Prop. 36 will reduce the Proposition 47 savings that fund mental health and substance use treatment grants, but said the near-term reduction is relatively modest and that the full effect will take time to appear because of the way those savings are calculated. Members of the committee repeatedly raised concerns that the state is underfunding the courts and counties needed to carry out the new law. The committee also reviewed the Governor’s proposed trial court operations budget, including a partial restoration of a prior $97 million cut and additional ongoing funding. Judicial branch officials said the restoration helped avoid furloughs, hiring freezes, and service reductions, and supported cybersecurity, technology, staffing, and records management. The LAO recommended that the Legislature seek more detail on how midyear restorations are handled and consider clarifying language for transferring unspent trial court trust fund monies to the General Fund. Finance said the flexibility in the ongoing funding was intentional and would be taken back for consideration. In a separate item, the committee heard testimony on a $6.3 million increase for Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal appointed counsel programs. Judicial officials and appellate project representatives said the system is facing a crisis because indigent appeals have risen sharply while the number of panel attorneys has fallen, leaving many cases waiting months for counsel. They argued the proposed increase would help but is still below what is needed to recruit and retain attorneys and prevent delays that affect criminal, juvenile, and child welfare cases. The committee also discussed the Tracy courthouse project in San Joaquin County, where local officials said reopening a courthouse closed since 2011 is necessary to serve a growing population and relieve overcrowding elsewhere. The LAO and Finance both noted the project is next in line under the facilities plan, though LAO suggested the Legislature could consider whether other facility priorities should come first.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's for the funds that the Legislature has provided to us, the SAFER program.
• Does it fall back on us as a Legislature to ensure that the funding is there?
• And I know the Legislature has a lot of competing issues that you're dealing with.
• And on another subject related, the Legislature adopted AB 205 a few years ago.
• And that also means... ...between you and many in the legislature.

Committee: Senate Rules

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You, as the Legislature, are probably going to be under pressure to do something about that.
• It very much depends on what the Legislature would like to protect.
• The Legislature has a good amount of flexibility to define what infrastructure spending is.
• There is a bill that was introduced on the other side of the Legislature and the Assembly.
• It can be used anywhere the Legislature wants to put those dollars.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee held an informational hearing on California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or Rainy Day Fund, with presentations from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, Practical Idealism Economics, and the California Budget and Policy Center. The LAO explained that California’s revenue volatility is driven largely by the personal income tax and high-income capital gains, and described how Proposition 2 deposits work, the 10% cap on the BSA, and the LAO’s evaluation that the current policy would cover only about 30% of funding shortfalls over 50 years in an unfavorable benchmark scenario. The LAO recommended raising the cap to 50% over time and either adopting broader deposit rules or depositing all excess capital gains. Finance said the administration had proposed raising the cap to 20% and excluding reserve deposits and withdrawals from the state appropriations limit. The Budget Center supported reserve reform but stressed balancing savings with current service needs and noted other tools such as revenue changes, borrowing from special funds, and the new Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account. Committee members debated the purpose and adequacy of reserves, the role of the state appropriations limit, and whether reserves should be paired with broader fiscal reforms. Several senators argued that reserves are needed to preserve core services during downturns and that the current system is too complicated and too small, while others emphasized the need to protect spending on health care, child care, and other services for working Californians. There was also discussion of infrastructure spending as a possible countercyclical tool and whether deposits for infrastructure should be treated differently under reserve and SAL rules. The LAO said the Legislature has flexibility in defining infrastructure spending and suggested an infrastructure fund could function as a separate reserve-like mechanism. A significant portion of the hearing turned to broader tax and budget policy, including repeated references to Proposition 13, the state’s revenue structure, business departures, unemployment insurance financing, and the impact of inequality on California’s fiscal resilience. Some members argued Prop. 13 was driven by affordability concerns for homeowners, while others said it created loopholes that benefit corporations and constrain local revenue. The hearing did not take any vote or formal action; it remained informational, with the chair indicating the committee would continue questions and public comment after the panel discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• So she said this is a double standard between the legislature and local government.
• The legislature, as sometimes happens, kind of came to an impasse on what to do.
• And I'm talking their national legislatures, for how many their national legislatures represent in terms
• But I have the great privilege today of having a shadow in the legislature.
• It passed out of the legislature and the governor vetoed it.

Bills: HB2070 , HB2129 , HB2227 , HB2439 , HB2667 , HB2745 , HB2773 , HB2825 , HB2873 , HB2876 , HCR2005 , HCR2044 , SB1002 , SB1036 , SB1054 , SB1271 , SB1432 , SB1435 , SB1437 , SB1439 , SCR1022 , SCR1031 , SCR1033

Committee: Senate Government

Keywords: flood relief, Gila County, emergency funding, public safety, environmental cleanup, municipal libraries, annual reporting, state legislation, transparency, government accountability, chiropractic, chiropractor, chiropractic board, state board of chiropractic examiners, license discipline, unprofessional conduct, patient records, record retention, HIPAA, conflict of interest

Transcript Highlights:

• That cost issue was kind of tabled, but the Legislature was made aware of that.
• So do you think that might incentivize people to come to the Legislature?
• Get some money from the Legislature?
• Do you think that might incentivize people to come to the Legislature, not come to an agreement?
• These are the kind of bills, honestly, I love about working in the legislature.

Summary: The committee began with a work session on the Washington State Transportation Commission’s route jurisdiction transfer study. Commissioners and staff said the current state highway system is generally well connected and that wholesale realignment is not needed, but they recommended clarifying statutory criteria, improving the transfer process, increasing interagency coordination, and making data analysis more transparent. Members asked about why transfers occur, who pays for maintenance after a transfer, how often transfers happen, and how the Legislature’s role should be understood. Staff said there have been only 16 RJT transfers since 1991, with a net transfer of about 10 miles of state highway to cities, while DOT abandonments happen more often but are not tracked as consistently. The committee then held a public hearing on House Bill 2172, which would fold longer abandonments and bridge-related abandonments into the RJT process, require pre-request conferences, expand legislative review of costs and risks, and update highway criteria. Tacoma officials, the Transportation Commission, counties, cities, and the Transportation Improvement Board testified in support, citing transparency, local input, and the need to address large bridge and corridor transfers; the bill sponsor said a substitute would allow agreed transfers to proceed without final legislative approval, but send disputed cases to the Legislature. The bill was also described as having an indeterminate fiscal impact, with WSDOT estimating possible added maintenance costs if transfers are delayed. The committee next heard House Bill 1367, which would allow motorcycles to use the right shoulder of limited-access highways under specific congestion conditions. The bill and a proposed substitute would limit shoulder use to wide shoulders, require hazard lights, cap speed at 10 mph over adjacent traffic, and bar passing other vehicles on the shoulder; the fiscal note projected costs for driver education and possible maintenance and signage impacts. The sponsor argued the bill would reduce rider fatigue, heat stress, and rear-end risk in stop-and-go traffic, while opponents from law enforcement and WSDOT said shoulders are intended for emergencies, debris and visibility create safety risks, and the proposal could increase maintenance and enforcement burdens. Several motorcyclists and advocates supported the bill as a safer alternative to lane splitting, while a student and some agencies said it would give riders a more predictable option; the committee then closed the hearing. The committee also heard House Bill 2174, which would create “crash prevention zones” in areas with repeated serious collisions or fatalities. The bill would allow cities, counties, towns, or WSDOT to designate zones after a public hearing, require engineering and traffic studies, increase enforcement, and impose a $73 penalty for certain infractions within signed zones, with revenue dedicated to safety work in the zone. The sponsor pointed to dangerous stretches of Highway 395 and Highway 12 in eastern Washington and said the bill is intended as a temporary safety tool until long-term fixes are completed. Counties and cities supported the concept and asked for liability protections and language from a Senate companion bill; the committee then moved to House Bill 2718, a transportation permitting and project-delivery bill. Staff said HB 2718 would impose timelines and deemed-approval rules for certain state and federal permits, require early outreach to affected governments and tribes, create a public contractor-rating website, and direct WSDOT to report on permit-streamlining options by December 1, 2027. The sponsor said the bill is meant to reduce delays and costs in transportation projects by improving accountability, coordination, and permitting efficiency.

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislature may not be able to respond to them.
• About the court, when the legislature created the Texas business.
• So textualism says we look to the text of the law as passed by you, the legislature.
• If it's a conservative legislature that passed that law or the legislature reflects conservative public
• I would leave it up to the legislature whether you want to try to.

Committee: Senate Nominations

Keywords: Texas Water Fund, water management, infrastructure funding, local governments, workforce development, community colleges, educational programs, sustainability

Summary: The meeting focused on several crucial issues, including the Texas Water Fund and its implications for development in the state. Various members highlighted the critical need for effective management of water resources, discussing the role of the Water Development Board and their strategies for outreach to local governments. The committee engaged in a thorough examination of funding projects and the sustainable financing necessary for communities facing challenges in meeting their infrastructure needs. Additionally, there was notable discussion regarding promoting workforce development and the alignment of educational programs with the demands of the job market as indicated by recent trends in community colleges.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions is charged with providing a report to the legislature
• The measure is then filed with the legislature.
• There are a lot of things that I think this legislature, again, has been bold on.
• For the record, I'm Dave Kaufman, senior executive and legislature director at the MMA.
• Is there anything that the legislature should be doing to incentivize that in our municipalities?

Bills: H5009

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Keywords: collective bargaining, worker rights, labor relations, public counsel services, state employees, 1212, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I’m happy to provide input to the extent the Legislature needs some additional information.”
• So now the Legislature has funded the additional rehab positions for that facility.
• That the Legislature has funded, you know, free messaging for the incarcerated.
• So we recommend the Legislature direct the department to report in budget hearings on what steps it's
• The legislature could also seek updates on Could the legislature could also seek updates on the progress

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview from the Board of State and Community Corrections on its budget change proposal for 11 additional permanent positions, which BSCC said are needed to manage a rapidly expanded grant workload, increase technical assistance, and strengthen oversight and audits. BSCC also updated members on its new In Custody Death Review Division, created under SB 519, reporting that it has begun collecting and reviewing local jail death investigations, has hired about one-third of its staff, and has received access to medical records and related documents. Members raised concerns about family notification practices, local jail deaths, and whether BSCC’s increased administrative use would reduce grant dollars; BSCC said the change is intended to be permanent but should not substantially affect local assistance. The LAO supported the position authority request but flagged a methodological issue in the administration’s Proposition 47 savings estimate, and Finance said it would update the estimate by May Revision. The committee then reviewed CDCR’s overall budget, population, and facility issues. The Secretary said the incarcerated population is holding around 90,000, parole around 33,000, and described major cost pressures from retirements, workers’ compensation, medical transport, violence, and aging infrastructure lacking air conditioning and ADA features. He defended prison closures as creating overcrowding and reducing programming capacity, while also highlighting successes such as declining recidivism, expanded college and reentry programming, and the completion of the San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. Members pressed CDCR on fiscal discipline, the effect of closures on savings, community impacts from prison shutdowns, vacancy and staffing issues, and climate-related facility needs. CDCR said it clusters medically vulnerable and ADA-needing populations at more suitable facilities, uses heat plans and temperature monitoring, and is developing a 20-year infrastructure plan. A separate item addressed CDCR’s request for $91 million ongoing for lump-sum leave payouts for correctional officers and nurses. CDCR said these costs have historically been covered by vacancy savings, but declining vacancies and facility closures have reduced that source. The LAO said the funding is reasonable in the near term but recommended limited-term approval with reporting, and urged the Legislature to scrutinize unallocated savings assumptions and the ongoing Boston Consulting Group efficiency contract. Finance argued the lump-sum request should be ongoing because the costs are recurring and vacancy savings are less reliable. Members questioned whether CDCR is doing enough to reduce leave liability and whether the department will actually achieve the budgeted savings from the consultant work. Finally, CDCR presented updated population projections through June 2030, estimating a 6.5 percent decline in the institution population and a 10.4 percent decline in parole, while revising its Proposition 36 methodology based on actual admissions data. CDCR said Prop. 36 admissions are increasing but at a lower level than previously projected, and that the law’s long-term effects remain uncertain. On the California Rehabilitation Center closure, CDCR projected about $99.6 million in net General Fund savings next year and roughly $150 million ongoing, with 522 positions eliminated. The LAO said the state could close another prison within a few years and identified the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad as a strong candidate, recommending against approving new capital projects there unless another closure is identified. Finance said the administration has not proposed any additional closure at this time.

Transcript Highlights:

• So now, and the Legislature has funded the additional rehab positions for that facility.
• The Legislature has funded, you know, free messaging for the incarcerated.
• So we recommend the Legislature direct the department to report in budget hearings on what steps it's
• The Legislature could also seek updates on the progress of the work, given that when we spoke to the
• The legislature could also seek updates on Could the legislature could also seek updates on the progress

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation heard an overview from the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) on its budget change proposal and grant administration. BSCC requested authority for 11 additional permanent positions to handle a workload that has nearly tripled over five to seven years, with more than 600 grant agreements and about $1.5 billion in grant funds in the field. The board also reported on its new In-Custody Death Review Division, which has collected data since July 2024 and received 136 jail death reports; staff said the division is still building out reviews and has identified overdose, natural causes, and suicide by hanging as the leading manners of death. Members raised concerns about family notification practices, oversight of local grants, and the impact of taking more administrative funds from local assistance, while the LAO and Department of Finance did not oppose the position request but urged correction of the administration’s Proposition 47 savings methodology before May Revision. The committee then reviewed CDCR’s overall budget and operations. Secretary Jeffrey Macomber described a relatively steady prison and parole population, ongoing structural budget pressures from retirement payouts, workers’ compensation, medical transport, violence, and aging facilities lacking air conditioning and ADA features. He emphasized rehabilitation, recidivism reduction, college programming, and the department’s 20-year infrastructure planning effort, while also defending the closure of the California Rehabilitation Center and warning that additional closures can increase overcrowding, double-celling, and waitlists for programming. Senators pressed CDCR on fiscal discipline, vacancy savings, staffing shortages in medical and mental health classifications, the use of tablets for incarcerated people, and community impacts from prison closures, including the Norco site. A separate item focused on CDCR’s request for $91 million ongoing for lump-sum leave payouts to separating correctional officers and nurses. CDCR said these costs had historically been covered by vacancy savings, but lower vacancy levels and facility closures have reduced that funding source. The LAO supported the funding only on a limited-term basis with reporting, arguing the need may change as the system reaches a new normal, and also urged the Legislature to scrutinize the broader structural shortfall and the Boston Consulting Group efficiency contract. Finance supported ongoing funding, saying the costs are recurring and vacancy savings are less reliable. The committee also discussed CDCR’s fall 2025 population projections, which forecast a 6.5% decline in the institution population and a 10.4% decline in parole over five years, while updating Proposition 36 assumptions based on actual admissions data. CDCR and Finance said the California Rehabilitation Center closure would generate savings and that no additional prison closure had been formally proposed, though the LAO argued the state could close another prison and recommended not funding certain Soledad projects unless another closure is identified.

Transcript Highlights:

• We’re the legislature. When we’re setting the budget, we can do that.
• We’re the legislature. When we’re setting the budget, we can do that.
• We’re the legislature. When we’re setting the budget, we can do that.
• We’re the legislature. When we’re setting the budget, we can do that.
• , legislature, legislature, but<00:29:21.120><c> we</c><00:29:21.360><c> can</c><00:29:21.600><c> make

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I thought I might give, this is not a new issue to the legislature.
• Would the legislature have passed this? Was this part of some big deal or something?
• I've never heard it in the legislature before. I'm not going to say no one has ever filed it.
• Joint resolutions, that is proposed constitutional amendments that are enacted by the legislature.
• So this covers every sort of legislative act that the legislature might do.

Committee: House Legislative Review

Summary: The Committee on Legislative Review met with five members present and took up two public hearings: House Bill 369 and House Bill 3465. On HB 369, Representative Simmons said the bill would let school employees join or leave teachers’ unions at any time and would prohibit school districts from automatically deducting union dues from paychecks, citing the Janus decision and arguing members should pay directly rather than through payroll deduction. Committee members questioned why the bill was needed, whether unions and school districts had been consulted, whether current law already allows opt-in/opt-out at any time, and whether the bill would affect other payroll deductions. Opposition testimony from Missouri NEA, Missouri State Teachers Association, and the Missouri AFL-CIO said the bill was unnecessary, targeted unions, could create administrative burdens, and might raise constitutional concerns; they emphasized that payroll deduction is already voluntary and that members can cancel membership at any time. No vote was taken on HB 369 during the hearing. The committee then heard HB 3465, a severability bill sponsored by Representative Keithley. He explained that it would create a broader severability standard so that if part of a legislative act is found unconstitutional, the rest could remain in effect unless there is clear and convincing evidence the legislature would not have passed the act without the invalid provision. He said the bill is intended to give courts clearer guidance and preserve the remainder of legislation when possible. Questions from members focused on how this differs from existing severability law and whether it would improperly direct the courts; Keithley responded that it clarifies legislative intent and applies to procedural as well as substantive constitutional issues. Supporters, including Campaign Life Missouri, said the bill would apply to bills, joint resolutions, and concurrent resolutions and would give courts a clearer standard. There was no opposition testimony on HB 3465, and the hearing concluded with no further business and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• as to the seriousness of the legislature as to the seriousness of the agency<00:14:38.440><c> or</c>
• </c> services it says that the legislature services it says that the legislature should<00:30:42.279>
• I mean, at least in the Legislature, we do have people from a variety of professions.
• </c> information before the legislature information before the legislature because<00:40:40.359><c> we
• </c> report like this to the legislature report like this to the legislature every every every year<00

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there a directive from the legislature, or is it within the authority's purview?
• But to... ...authority from the Legislature in order to look at some kind of a statewide framework.
• The Legislature abdicated a lot of their responsibility to CARB.
• And actually, I would welcome recommendations from all of you and from any member of the Legislature
• And I certainly appreciate the recognition that the Legislature creates the law, that the Legislature

Committee: Senate Rules

Summary: The committee first established quorum and then approved several governor’s appointments not required to appear, including Indira Cameron Banks to the Civil Rights Council, Sonar Loma Lee to the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, and two University of California College of the Law, San Francisco Board of Directors appointees, along with reference of bills to two committees and floor acknowledgments. All of those items passed by voice or roll-call votes, mostly unanimously, with the Civil Rights Council appointment approved 3-2. The main portion of the meeting focused on the Air Resources Board appointments of Linda Hopkins and Patricia Lock Dawson. Both nominees emphasized climate action, public engagement, and balancing environmental protection with economic realities. Members questioned them extensively about cap-and-trade/cap-and-invest, leakage and job losses, agricultural impacts, warehouse and truck traffic burdens, emergency vehicle and wildfire evacuation needs, low-carbon fuel standards, gas appliance rules, hydrogen, nuclear energy, and the need for socioeconomic analysis and better communication with affected communities. Public commenters from labor, environmental, local government, and industry groups spoke in support of both nominees. The committee approved Hopkins 4-0 with one member not voting, and Lock Dawson 5-0, sending both nominations to the full Senate. The committee then heard Andrew Rakestraw’s appointment as chair of the Board of Environmental Safety/DTSC oversight board. He described his background in climate and regulatory negotiations and said he would focus on transparency, accountability, fiscal stability, and listening to both regulated entities and disproportionately burdened communities. Senators asked about DTSC reform, the Moss Landing battery fire, community engagement in places like Hinkley/Herupah Valley, fee-setting and the generation-and-handling fee, the Environmental Justice Advisory Council, the Exide cleanup, and the hazardous waste management plan. After supportive public testimony, the committee approved his appointment 3-0, with one member not voting, and sent it to the full Senate for confirmation before adjourning.