Transcript Highlights:

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• sources that may be needed are in place before they come to you all asking for funding.
• that may be needed are in place before they come to you all asking for funding.
• for, or that I guess there might be a broad need for projects that were fully funded and now aren't.
• And we all fund this portion, you fund that, so it's fully funded.
• And we all fund this portion, you fund that, so it's fully funded.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

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

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Transportation

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Committee: Senate Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• We need our local assistance funding through our state arts agency increased.
• is a hugely important need for us to be able to fund and clearly has a lot of demand.
• They're awaiting funding. They just need that to begin construction.
• We totally 100% agree with you, Assembly Member, about the need to invest more funding in HAP.
• It has zero money funding left as of today. So we really do need that support.

Summary: The committee opened with the State Controller’s Office May Revision requests, including funding for Fiscal book-of-record stabilization, a Broadcom IDMS licensing adjustment, the California State Payroll System, ACFR reporting automation, and $3 million for unclaimed property outreach. Testimony emphasized progress on Fiscal becoming the state’s accounting book of record in July, faster ACFR publication, and the move to electronic unclaimed property claims. Members asked about the size of the unclaimed property fund and how quickly money is transferred to the General Fund; the Controller’s office said about $15 billion is held, with most excess transferred regularly, and the LAO noted the fund is the General Fund’s fourth-largest revenue source. No concerns were raised by Finance or the LAO, and the item was closed after no public comment. The committee then heard the administration’s proposal to tax prewritten digital software and software-as-a-service, with Finance saying it would modernize sales tax treatment and raise an estimated $450 million General Fund and $560 million local revenue in 2026-27. The LAO supported modernizing the tax but suggested broader digital goods coverage and a business-use exemption; industry and taxpayer groups opposed the proposal, warning of higher costs for consumers and businesses. Members also heard CDTFA’s administrative request tied to the proposal, plus a separate CDTFA budget reduction reflecting lower operational needs; that reduction was presented as a savings item and drew positive reactions. Next, the committee considered federal conformity for “Trump accounts,” which would align California tax treatment with federal rules for tax-deferred children’s accounts and avoid tracking burdens for families. The LAO recommended approval, and the item drew no opposition. The committee also heard a proposal to cut the first-year $800 annual business tax to $400 for LLCs, LPs, and LLPs; Finance argued it would lower startup costs and encourage new business formation, while the LAO said the benefit was not well targeted and could subsidize entities that would form anyway. Members discussed the policy tradeoff, and public commenters split between support for small business relief and concern about revenue loss. The final major revenue item was a permanent business tax credit limitation, capping credits at the greater of $5 million per corporation or 50% of pre-credit liability, while excluding the low-income housing tax credit and personal income tax credits. Finance said it would raise significant revenue from large profitable corporations, and the LAO said it was a reasonable option but noted it would mainly affect the R&D credit and could have future implications for programs like California Competes. Public testimony was sharply divided, with business groups opposing the cap and anti-poverty advocates supporting it as a way to recapture revenue. The committee also heard FTB’s CalFile realignment request, which would return most of the direct-file-related resources to the General Fund while retaining a smaller staff to improve CalFile, and the California Arts Council’s request to reauthorize the Keep Arts in Schools voluntary contribution fund, which members and advocates supported despite relatively modest annual donations. The hearing continued with GoBiz proposals on civic media funding, CA RISE reappropriation, and a semiconductor facility reversion, with the LAO supporting the latter two and members raising questions about the civic media program’s scope, outreach, and inclusion of broadcast and ethnic media.

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

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

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

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

Committee: House S/C on Transportation Funding

Transcript Highlights:

• FUNDING NEED AND HOW MUCH IS CURRENTLY BEING PROVIDED.
• WE BACK OUT TUITION REVENUE AND WE ARRIVE AT THE STATE FUNDING NEED.
• NEED TO THE LOCAL APPROPRIATION TO ARRIVE IT AT UNMET FUNDING NEED CALCULATION.
• NEED IS BEING MET BY THEIR CURRENT APPROPRIATION AND HISTORICALLY THAT UNMET FUNDING NEED HAS BEEN USED
• TO HELP DRIVE WHERE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES MAY NEED TO GO TO CLOSE THE GAP AND ENSURE EQUITABLE FUNDING

Transcript Highlights:

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

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

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

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Transcript Highlights:

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

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

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

Transcript Highlights:

• And then also recurring funding for important staffing, contracting, and other needs.
• It's definitely a funding issue. We need to talk about that.
• funding that needs to help our department continue to move forward.
• Authority that this funding is needed.
• Needed funding or could use funding to get ahead of the game.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• They need more than that. They need a skilled person to be able to do the job.
• The idea was local school districts can decide we don't need to put the funding in an ROCP program.
• I, you know, was just talking earlier about how we need funding to incentivize regional collaborations
• I, you know, was just talking earlier about how we need funding for, to incentivize regional collaborations
• We need to take a vote, so we need a motion.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance heard an overview of the governor’s new Career Education Master Plan and related budget items. Labor Secretary Knox described the plan as an effort to reduce fragmentation across K-12, community colleges, workforce boards, and other systems by improving statewide and regional coordination, data sharing, skills-based hiring, career pathways, and wraparound supports such as child care, housing, food, and transportation. Members asked how success would be measured, how the plan would serve disconnected youth and adults, and whether the proposed data integration would rely on Cradle to Career; the secretary said it would. The Department of Finance said it was available to answer questions on the education side. The committee then reviewed existing CTE funding and oversight. The LAO, CDE, and Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office described the major ongoing programs, including CTIG, Perkins, K-12 Strong Workforce, and Community College Strong Workforce, and noted that many programs overlap in purpose and administration. Members repeatedly raised concerns about duplication, annual applications and reporting burdens, lack of clear outcome metrics, and whether funding incentives should be better aligned to regional collaboration. CDE and the Chancellor’s Office said they support alignment and dual enrollment, and Finance and CDE said LCFF/local match dollars are part of the funding structure. The committee also discussed child care as a barrier to participation and the need for better tracking of enrollment, completion, and job outcomes. On the consolidated application proposal, Finance proposed a study directing CDE to examine whether three long-standing CTE grant programs—Specialized Secondary Programs, CTIG, and California Partnership Academies—could be streamlined into a single application and reporting process. The LAO supported reducing administrative burden but noted that the largest programs, CTIG and K-12 Strong Workforce, were excluded from the proposal even though districts most often cite them as burdensome. CDE said it did not oppose the study but warned that statutory differences may limit consolidation. Members said the proposal should better address regional coordination, multi-year funding stability, and outcome measures rather than only simplifying paperwork. Finally, the committee heard a proposal for a $5 million ongoing California Education Interagency Council. GovOps said the council would provide a neutral venue for statewide coordination across education and workforce systems. The LAO opposed the proposal, arguing that existing bodies already provide coordination, the proposal does not change agency incentives, and the council would lack authority to implement decisions. Members expressed mixed views, with some supporting a coordinating body and others questioning whether it would differ from past efforts. No votes were taken during the portions summarized here, and the committee indicated it would hold some items open for further discussion.