Transcript Highlights:

• The governor's budget reflects...
• The governor's budget reflects $98 million in savings being allocated in the budget year, accruing from
• As mentioned, the 2024-25 budget includes a budget for this year, but going back to 2024-25, includes
• Kern County would be budget year plus two. Tahoe would be budget year plus three.
• Just to give you a budget update on that, I think we have a budget update on that.

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:

• These were funded in the 2023 Budget Act for three years.
• And as you weigh very difficult budget decisions in a difficult budget year, I urge you to restore and
• The governor's budget also proposes, as Ms.
• The governor's budget also proposes, as Ms.
• That has not been adjusted for the budget.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation heard presentations on the Office of the State Public Defender, civil legal aid funding, and Judicial Branch operations. The State Public Defender requested permanent funding for positions that had been temporarily funded to implement the Racial Justice Act, explaining that the workload has grown substantially through retroactive capital-case briefing, habeas proceedings, data requests, and related statistical analysis. She also presented findings from a public defense workload and staffing report showing that California’s county-based public defense system is under-resourced, with too few attorneys, investigators, and support staff, especially in rural counties, and that statewide standards and funding are lacking. Committee members asked about the scope of racial bias claims, the impact of collaborative courts and Prop. 36, and the need for statewide cost estimates and phased funding options. The committee then heard from legal aid advocates and a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in support of increased civil legal aid funding. Witnesses described the Equal Access Fund, homelessness prevention services, health care access, and immigration detention defense as cost-effective ways to prevent evictions, stabilize families, and reduce downstream public costs. They requested a $50 million increase to the Equal Access Fund, $20 million to restart homelessness prevention services, and $10 million for health care access work, along with additional targeted investments from the California Access to Justice Commission. Testimony emphasized the severe shortage of legal aid attorneys, the high demand for immigration representation, and the role of legal aid in domestic violence, housing, and family law matters. Senators asked for more information on service locations, outreach, funding losses, and how the requested amounts were calculated. In the Judicial Branch overview, Judicial Council and trial court representatives supported the Governor’s proposed budget, including a $70 million increase for trial court operations, $21.7 million for employee health and retirement costs, and funding for appellate counsel and case processing. They said the money is needed to offset inflation, supply chain costs, and staffing pressures, and to preserve access to justice. Senators pressed the branch and Department of Finance on interpreter shortages, midyear funding flexibility, courthouse facilities needs, and judgeship needs in inland counties. Finance officials said they were aware of the broader facilities backlog, and the committee requested follow-up information on the full capital and maintenance needs, interpreter funding, and updated judgeship and workload data. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• committee and was budget chairman.
• We were budgeted for, I think, 163 FTE.
• The proposed budget... ...budget in House Bill 2010 threatens to roll back that progress that we just
• recovery support budget?
• It's a tight budget year.

Summary: The committee first heard the State Auditor’s fiscal year 2027 budget request. Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick described rebuilding the office after staffing had fallen to a historic low, explaining that the office has grown from 92.5 to 119 FTE but still needs several years to reach full staffing, especially at the manager level. He said most of the budget is payroll, noted the office’s use of lapsing general revenue while staffing is rebuilt, and outlined requests including core operating funds, a small sports betting audit NDI, and a $290,000 increase to the CPA stipend to address recruitment and retention problems. Members also discussed the auditor’s authority to audit state agencies and subrecipients, the office’s role in performance audits, and the meaning of “E” appropriations and the auditor’s recent general revenue conditions report. The committee then moved to public testimony on House Bill 10, focusing on Department of Health and Senior Services and Department of Mental Health issues. One witness from the American Heart Association supported continued funding for cardiac emergency response planning in schools, citing AEDs, CPR training, and about 480 schools served. Another witness from the Alzheimer’s Association urged rejection of a proposed $1 million reduction to the Missouri caregiver program, arguing it supports families caring for people with dementia and helps avoid more expensive institutional care. Most of the testimony concerned proposed cuts to developmental disability services, especially day habilitation and self-directed supports (SDS). Providers, family members, and workers said the proposed reductions would force service cuts, reduce wages, and threaten community-based care that keeps people at home and out of more costly facilities. They argued the cuts would shift costs to emergency, residential, or institutional settings and asked the committee to preserve current funding levels. Several members asked questions about provider rates, the share of services delivered by private providers, and the cost difference between SDS and institutional care. The hearing ended with the chair apologizing for earlier tension, explaining the schedule, and recessing the committee to return later because of House floor obligations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Subsequent budget acts.
• The 2022 Budget Act agreement established a new funding floor starting in this budget year 2025-2026
• Now, on to the Governor's budget proposals.
• budget requests, which was $10 million.
• Certainly as proposed in the Governor's budget.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Good morning, Jessica Moore, DFA budget.
• She's leading up the budget team at DFA.
• You mean they're spending $14 million and it's not in the budget? It would be in their budget, yes.
• Bluff are different budgets.
• that you... ...budget request.

Summary: The committee first adopted revised JBC rules, which staff said were updated to reflect legislation passed in the 2025 session. It then heard a presentation from DFA Secretary Jim Hudson on the governor’s proposed balanced budget for FY27, with no action taken. Hudson said the budget reflects three priorities: limiting state-government growth, continuing investments in education, and advancing income-tax cuts. He highlighted increases for education funding through EFAs, pay-plan costs for Corrections, DPS, and the Attorney General, higher education productivity funding, drug task forces, a Corrections medical contract, the governor’s 1033 initiative, SNAP error-rate reduction efforts, and an additional $100 million set aside for Medicaid sustainability. Committee members questioned the size of the tax cuts, the balance requirement, public education funding, Medicaid trust-fund levels, EFA funding, and the expected impact of new SNAP cost-sharing rules. The Division of Higher Education then presented its productivity-based funding recommendations. Officials said institutions were 2.61% more productive overall, with funding changes driven by a statutory formula that rewards degree production, underserved populations, and high-demand fields. Members asked about declines at UA Little Rock, the formula’s multipliers, the role of the Arkansas Access Act and a new return-on-investment metric, and how two-year colleges are adjusted for size. The committee also reviewed special items and approved two letters: one authorizing 17 net personnel changes across nine institutions, and another adding special language for North Arkansas College’s entry into the University of Arkansas system. The committee then adopted the Higher Education Coordinating Board’s recommendations for all institutions. A lengthy portion of the meeting focused on the University of Arkansas system, especially Fayetteville’s athletics funding and the broader impact of the House/NIL settlement. Chancellor Charles Robinson and system officials explained that the board had waived a longstanding campus transfer and directed the university to provide an additional $6 million to athletics, with some costs likely to be passed through to students but partially offset by existing budget growth. Members debated whether the university should prioritize academics or athletics, how the transfer originated, and whether the athletic changes would affect affordability. The committee also discussed the 1890 extension program at UAPB and the Division of Agriculture’s land-grant funding. UAPB officials said the state match is intended to be one-to-one, that the current recommendation aligns appropriation with actual spending, and that a $2 million set-aside remains available if needed. The Division of Agriculture later clarified that its Smith-Lever extension and Hatch research funds are part of the UA system’s separate budget and that the state matched about $6.2 million in federal extension funding last year. The committee then moved to the Department of Corrections. It approved G1, transferring 51 positions to the secretary’s office to activate a recidivism program, with an estimated cost of about $4 million. Staff then began walking through the department’s FY27 budget, noting an increase of about $8 million for administration and shared services, including a $170,000 sex-offender assessment appropriation moved under Act 723 of 2025 and roughly $6 million more for medical contracts. Questions on the Corrections budget had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• The remainder of the state budget is about 40% of the general fund budget, about $46.8 billion.
• budgets</c><00:20:30.720><c> about</c> general fund budgets about general fund budgets about 46.8<00
• budget.
• </c> the general fund budget uh sales tax the general fund budget uh sales tax about<00:24:58.399><c>
• Hudson the the legislative budget Hudson the the legislative budget tracking<00:45:20.680><c> that</c

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Into our budget.
• So, we were able to come in under budget.
• Is that correct that their budget that the LFC budget is proposing, Madam Chair? It's Close.
• million is a 49% budget increase.
• We're managing two budgets, so we're not.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 74% of our overall budget.
• 74% of our overall budget.
• in our budget to date.
• in our budget to date.
• . budget. budget.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> oversee them and their budget? oversee them and their budget?
• . budget. budget.
• They're budgeted in personnel lines. They're budgeted in contract lines.
• They're budgeted in personnel lines. They're budgeted in contract lines.
• </c> and the budget neutrality factor. and the budget neutrality factor. the<01:20:52.640><c> budget<

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 110 is a budget bill junior that amends the 2026 Budget Act to identify budget-related legislation
• It builds out the whole budget architecture; it's a piece of the puzzle to build out the entire budget
• problems with the budget and we dealt with that in the budget, but we also attempted to deal with some
• I appreciate wanting to have a balanced budget, but balancing budgets don't have borrowed money.
• They don't have...” “...budget. But balancing budgets don't have borrowed money.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review subcommittee heard four budget trailer bills: AB 110, AB 122, AB 125, and AB 177. AB 110 was described as a budget bill junior identifying budget-related legislation. AB 122 would extend sales tax to electronically delivered or remotely accessed prewritten software, extend and later limit business tax credits, reduce the annual LLC/LLP/LP tax for first-year businesses for three years, and impose a 100% tax on certain federal anti-weaponization fund settlements. AB 125 would renew the managed care organization (MCO) tax for three years beginning in 2027 to support Medi-Cal and targeted provider rate increases. AB 177 would require the Department of Finance to return by March 1, 2027 with options for assessing large employers for the Medi-Cal costs of employees enrolled in the program, including at least one employer-paid premium option for firms with 250 or more employees, and would appropriate $1,000 General Fund for implementation. Administration witnesses said AB 122 modernizes the tax system and helps create general fund revenue, while AB 125 is needed to preserve Medi-Cal financing and targeted rate increases under new federal constraints from H.R. 1 and to avoid a budget hole if the MCO tax expires. On AB 177, Finance said the bill is only a study and does not itself impose a tax, but would direct the administration to develop options for future consideration. Supportive members argued the package is part of a balanced approach to address the structural deficit, protect health care and other safety-net programs, and ensure large corporations pay more of their share. They also said AB 177 is a necessary step toward asking large employers to help cover public health care costs for workers who rely on Medi-Cal. Opponents, led by Vice Chair Niello and several other Republicans, argued the state does not have a revenue shortage but a spending problem, warning that the proposals would raise costs on consumers and businesses, discourage innovation, and expand taxes beyond their intended scope. They criticized AB 122 as potentially taxing labor-like services and limiting research and development credits, and said AB 125 would increase premiums for commercial enrollees and employers. On AB 177, they questioned the lack of definitions and specifics, saying the bill is too vague and could eventually burden employers, including hospitals and part-time workers, without clear standards. No votes were taken in the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and questions before public comment and later action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Colleen Gill with the Office of Planning and Budget.
• and the non-discretionary adjusted standstill budget.
• the non-discretionary adjusted standstill budget.
• It's a total increase of 2.8% to LDH's budget.
• But the budget number is significant, correct?

Summary: The committee met to review budget and fiscal items, beginning with a roll call and a reminder about severe weather and the need to keep the meeting brief. Members first received the January fiscal status statement and certified the prior-year surplus at $577,073,871, with no changes from the prior month. The fiscal status statement was approved without objection. Staff then reviewed the five-year baseline budget and continuation/standstill budgets, noting projected imbalances in later years driven by revenue declines, including the redirection of motor vehicle sales tax, and by rising costs such as inflation and Medicaid adjustments. Representative Amadee asked about Medicaid growth and SNAP administrative costs, and staff explained that the SNAP federal match change is separate from Medicaid. The governor’s executive budget presentation focused on a third year of standstill budgeting, efficiency savings, and the impact of one-time reductions and agency reorganizations. Officials said the budget avoids recurring spending from nonrecurring revenue and incorporates savings from prior efficiency efforts. Major items discussed included funding for LA Gator vouchers, the high-impact jobs program at Louisiana Economic Development, DCFS modernization, corrections overtime and offender costs, Angola population growth, nursing home and MCO adjustments at LDH, and additional support for the MJ Foster Scholarship and Board of Regents systems. Members also discussed the distinction between state general fund and federal funds, the effect of inflation on specific purchases, and the use of surplus dollars, including deposits to the Budget Stabilization Fund and UAL paydown. No formal action was taken on the budget presentation. Later items included the FY27 expenditure limit calculation of $20.1 billion, up $953 million from FY26, and the annual comprehensive financial report, which received an unmodified audit opinion. The committee approved a BA-7 increasing federal funds for the governor’s office by $2 million for U.S. DOT-related infrastructure and rural transit work. It also approved Facility Planning and Control requests to add five higher education deferred maintenance projects and to combine two Baton Rouge Community College projects. CPRA received approval to extend contracts with Coastal Estuary Services and Access Sciences for monitoring and records-management services. The committee also approved a legislative intent clarification for a $500,000 appropriation to the New Orleans Recreational Development Foundation. The final major discussion was a presentation on a weighted caseload study for appellate and district courts. Judicial officials explained that the study updates an outdated formula used to assess judgeship needs, incorporates specialty courts and commissioners, and is intended as one tool in a broader collaborative process with the legislature. Members raised concerns about the number of judges, court funding, and how Louisiana compares with other states. No vote was taken on the study, but the discussion emphasized future collaboration on judicial resource allocation and possible structural changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Good afternoon and welcome to your favorite budget committee. Budget Sub 5.
• We have to have a little fun budget friends. We have to have a little fun, budget friends.
• restore structural balance in the budget.
• We have had 11 hearings in this Budget Sub 5.
• Remember, that's from the 2024-25 budget.

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:

• Major budget issues and proposals from the department in the Governor's Budget include the managed care
• Costs since the January budget also reflect...
• You all budget based on actuals.
• We're seeing trends higher than what we budgeted or assumed as part of the Budget Act and as part of
• Due to the budget deficit, it was not included in the budget.

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have two budgets. This committee has two budgets. We're going to hear Commerce today.
• We're going to talk about the base budget.
• We have two budgets. This committee has two budgets. We're going to hear Commerce today.
• We're going to talk about the base budget.
• We have two budgets. This committee has two budgets. We're going to hear Commerce today.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Budget Section’s Commerce and Legal Services Division met to review the Department of Commerce base budget for the 2027-29 biennium and to receive an update on Commerce programs. Legislative Council staff first walked the committee through the “blue sheet” base budget summary, explaining the major line items, the large share of federal grant authority in Commerce’s budget, and the continuing appropriations that support several Commerce funds. Members asked how grant funding is coordinated across agencies, and staff said collaboration varies by program but is strong in areas like UAS and LIHEAP. Commerce Commissioner Chris Schilken then presented on current activities, focusing heavily on grant administration, transparency, and economic development programs. Members questioned how grant applicants are selected, whether Commerce tracks applications and return on investment, and how long grant awards take to reach recipients. The commissioner said Commerce uses scoring criteria, outside reviewers, a minimum 30-day application window, and typically completes awards within two to three months. A lengthy exchange followed over whether Commerce should open some grants only to intended recipients versus running competitive application processes; Commerce said it follows best-practice grantmaking and that its attorney in the Attorney General’s office approved that approach. Commerce also highlighted the North Dakota Development Fund, citing long-term investment and job creation results, examples such as Red Trail Energy, Packet Digital, Valiance, Corvent Medical, child care loans, and the Automate ND program. Members asked about acceptable failures, lessons learned, regional economic development coordination, and the expansion of the fund into non-primary sectors. Workforce Director Katie Ralston Howell then outlined a statewide workforce ecosystem review, a new governor’s workforce sub-cabinet, and three task forces focused on simplifying entry, warm handoffs, and data integration. She discussed the in-demand occupations list, Workforce Pell, apprenticeships, and efforts to better connect students with employers and higher education. Commerce also briefly reviewed housing programs and a new housing sub-cabinet. No votes were taken; the committee simply received testimony, asked questions, and adjourned after setting up the next meeting to hear the Attorney General budget in June.

Transcript Highlights:

• Beginning in the budget year, the Governor's budget revises the funding methodology in an effort to:
• So in the budget year proposal, what we are suggesting is that because the focus is... ...budget year
• lower than what was estimated at the Budget Act.
• Are you speaking to the Governor's budget? Yes.
• Those deferrals were adopted in the 25-26 budget and continue to create out-year budget pressure for

Summary: The committee heard testimony on three education budget items: the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), differentiated assistance/statewide system of support, and universal school meals plus kitchen infrastructure grants. For ELOP, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to provide $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding and $62.4 million to set a minimum Tier 2 rate of $1,800 per pupil. The LAO recommended instead fixing the Tier 2 rate at $1,579, and committee members questioned how the rate was determined, how much funding is actually spent, and whether overlapping funding from ELOP, ACEs, and 21st Century programs is being tracked. CDE said ELOP is showing positive attendance and math outcomes, but some requested data will not be available until mid-2027; members also raised concerns about double-funding, transparency, and whether middle and high school students are being equitably served. On differentiated assistance, CCEE outlined the statewide system of support and the various tiers of universal, targeted, supplemental, and intensive assistance. Finance explained the Governor’s proposal to replace the current DA structure with a more stable universal and targeted assistance model, funded at $131.9 million ongoing, with a three-year support cycle aligned to LCAP and ESSA timelines and broader State Board authority to revise eligibility criteria. The LAO objected to considering the proposal before the State Board finalizes the new performance criteria, and committee members expressed concern that moving to a three-year cycle could delay support for LEAs that newly fall into need mid-cycle. There was also discussion about whether the proposal would weaken subgroup-based equity guardrails or give the State Board too much discretion over who qualifies for support. For school meals and kitchen infrastructure, Finance proposed $1.8 billion ongoing for universal meals and an additional $100 million ongoing plus $100 million one-time for a fourth round of kitchen infrastructure and training grants. The LAO recommended rejecting the new kitchen grant round because prior rounds are still being spent and the unmet need is not yet clear. CDE said prior investments have improved meal participation, efficiency, and menu variety, but many schools still lack the facilities for scratch cooking and face construction, electrical, and procurement barriers. Members asked for more data on how prior grants were used, which schools are benefiting, and whether funds could also support lower-cost food access strategies such as pantries, while noting federal restrictions on some meal-service innovations.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the public, particularly during budget the public, particularly during budget season<00:22:07.200
• </c> there's while you're doing the budget there's while you're doing the budget and<00:31:17.760><c>
• </c><01:18:33.440><c> A</c> is the school district budget cap. A is the school district budget cap.
• c> budget</c><01:18:48.440><c> cap.
• Um Senator Murphy had budget cap.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in the budget for... actually in the budget for high-risk adolescents, foster kids, for psychiatric
• to try to lean up our budget.
• . ...but that's not in the budget.
• We all know the impact of the budget clearly.
• So, I just challenge everybody through the budget process to... ...challenge everybody through the budget

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> follows when it comes to the budget. follows when it comes to the budget.
• A bianial budget simply means budget.
• produces for his budget or his supplementary<00:15:25.519><c> budget.
• </c> put the budget in a good position. put the budget in a good position.
• </c> that budget is in negative territory. that budget is in negative territory.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• will it the inspection stickers how will that affect your budget will it affect your budget well it
• Since the majority of the budget units have similar functions, the right portion divides the budget by
• Since the majority of the budget units have similar functions, the right portion divides the budget by
• Please, let's focus on budget questions that are specific to the budget of the entity as best we can.
• Is that anywhere in your budget?

Summary: The committee heard FY27 budget presentations for the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, beginning with Public Safety Services. House Fiscal Division staff reviewed the department’s recommended budget of $645.9 million, including supplemental pay, State Police, Motor Vehicles, and the State Fire Marshal. Officials explained that the overall budget reflects a net decrease from FY26, driven largely by shifts in funding sources, removal of one-time statutory dedications, and adjustments tied to undercollections in fees and self-generated revenues. State Police was recommended at $459.7 million, OMV at $86.7 million, and the Fire Marshal at $41.1 million. Department leaders also described ongoing modernization efforts, staffing vacancies, and the use of efficiencies identified internally. Lieutenant Colonel Robert Burns and agency heads testified about State Police operations, including increased cadet graduations, improved Mardi Gras security, progress on APHIS and OMV modernization, and the new crime lab under construction. Members asked about undercollections, vacancies, the role of public tag agents, and whether the agency could expand counter-drone capabilities. Burns said the department has identified about $11 million in efficiencies, but warned that counter-drone work would require additional funding, citing a $4.5 million fiscal note for HB 940 and roughly $9 million more for a robust unit. OMV officials said staffing and retention remain difficult, but modernization should improve service and reduce lines; they also said the agency continues to rely on public tag agents and is working through reinstatement fee collection issues. The committee then reviewed the Department of Corrections FY27 budget, recommended at $902.3 million, with most funding from State General Fund and a large increase tied to higher incarceration costs, medical needs, overtime, and added capacity at Louisiana State Penitentiary. DOC officials said the department remains under pressure from vacancies, turnover, contraband, and medical costs, and that the budget includes funding to add 150 correctional officers at Angola and to house ICE detainees at Camp J. They also discussed criminal justice reinvestment savings, prison enterprises, and reentry programs funded through the Second Chance Act. Members asked about staffing, inmate deaths at Elaine Hunt, work-release pay, and whether the department is tracking the true long-term cost of incarceration. Officials said they are pursuing pay increases, recruitment, expanded training and reentry programs, and more data-driven workforce alignment, while acknowledging that many budget pressures remain unresolved.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Education will come to order.
• That's the one we're requesting the provisional language to allow us to adjust our budget in the budget
• The May Revision includes budget bill language.
• And... 2025 Budget Act until June 30, 2027.
• But a budget is a reflection of priorities and of values.

Keywords: 987, senate, all