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

Transcript Highlights:

• discussions and come out with a fine budget.
• The budget from the Governor was $260 billion.
• We've done that in the past in our budgets.
• OUR BUDGETS.
• These are some of the changes in an enacted budget.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Education Budget Conference Joint Committee met on March 18 to begin negotiations on the state education budget. Co-chairs Senator Shelley Mayer and Assembly Member Benedetto outlined their chambers’ priorities, with the Senate emphasizing Foundation Aid changes to better support students experiencing homelessness or foster care, English language learners, a minimum 2% increase for all districts, expanded universal pre-K, and continued support for special education programs and nonpublic schools. The Assembly highlighted its one-house proposal, including a $1.4 billion increase in Foundation Aid, a higher ELL and pupil needs weighting, a new weight for students in foster care or housing instability, removal of the pupil needs cap, $600 million for New York City class size reduction, additional community schools funding, and restorations or increases for libraries, teacher resource centers, 4201 schools, My Brother’s Keeper, and educational television and radio. Members from both chambers offered opening remarks stressing education as a top budget priority and expressing confidence that a compromise could be reached. Senator Tedisco focused on school safety and bullying, arguing that parents should be notified when their children are bullied and citing the need to protect students’ ability to learn. Assembly Member Vanel emphasized education as a tool for economic mobility and called for stronger financial literacy instruction. Assembly Member Carroll supported funding for libraries and evidence-based reading programs, while Assembly Member Smith said the Foundation Aid formula remains outdated and urged more support for English language learners, special education, and community schools. Assembly Member Chludzinski stressed local control, criticized the electric school bus mandate, and called for greater support for libraries and fiscal restraint. No votes were taken. The meeting was an opening conference session, with both sides stating their intent to continue negotiations and work toward an on-time budget that reflects shared priorities for students, schools, and libraries across New York State.

Transcript Highlights:

• to the budget.
• sizable Budget Commission published the long-range financial outlook, which projected sizable budget
• This is the budget request.
• Under this proposed budget, no.
• And I can assure you our budget... I appreciate it.

Summary: The Transportation and Economic Development Budget Subcommittee met to consider its recommended fiscal year 2025-2026 budget and a conforming committee bill. Chair Shove presented an $18.5 billion TED budget, describing it as about 8.5% below the prior year’s TED budget and emphasizing recurring savings, reductions to vacant positions over 90 days old, and a focus on core agency needs. He highlighted funding for economic development, Visit Florida, Space Florida, affordable housing programs, military affairs, libraries, cultural and historic preservation grants, emergency management, and a $14.1 billion transportation work program. The committee then took up PCB TED 2501, which changes documentary stamp tax distributions by redirecting certain revenues to general revenue. The bill would reinstate the general revenue service charge on the supplemental housing-related dock stamp revenue, eliminating a recurring $150 million source for the State Housing Trust Fund, and would also redirect about $466 million from the State Transportation Trust Fund to general revenue. Chair Shove said the measure has no net zero fiscal impact on state revenues and does not alter the longstanding standard dock stamp funding for affordable housing or eliminate FDOT programs, arguing the bill preserves flexibility for future legislatures. Public testimony was split. Representatives from the Florida Transportation Builders Association and the Florida Public Transportation Association warned that the transportation trust fund reduction would significantly affect FDOT’s five-year work program, especially the Strategic Intermodal System, and could reduce planned capacity improvements and transit funding. Several members also raised concerns about the housing-related changes, arguing the bill undercuts commitments made through the Live Local framework and could weaken affordable housing efforts. In closing, Chair Shove defended the bill as a necessary tightening of recurring spending and said existing affordable housing and transportation programs would still be funded through other appropriations. The committee approved PCB TED 2501 on a 10-2 vote and reported it favorably before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Major budget issues and proposals the department in the governor's budget includes the managed care organization
• We're seeing trends higher than what we budgeted or assumed as part of the Budget Act and as part of
• the governor's budget, all based on actual data.
• Due to the budget deficit, it was not included in the budget, which we were hoping for and expecting.
• Health estimates and various budget issues.

Keywords: 988, house, all

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.
• The May Revision maintains the Governor's Budget The May Revision maintains the Governor's Budget proposals
• And 2025 Budget Act until June 30th, 2027.

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision proposals for higher education, beginning with the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education. Finance proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan used to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to allow budget flexibility for a remaining legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting the litigation costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about waiving interest on the loan, noting that special fund loans have historically been repaid with interest. Members asked about the litigation amount and the estimated interest savings, which Finance said would be about $245,000. The committee then discussed University of California funding, including the Governor’s proposed compact funding and a $1.5 million one-time increase for the First Star foster youth program at UC campuses. UC said the program has strong outcomes at UCLA, including a 100% college-going rate and high college completion rates, and that the new funding would expand the program to additional campuses and eventually be self-supporting through fundraising. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing that UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and that the new initiative would duplicate existing services. Several senators questioned whether the state should expand a new program instead of strengthening existing ones, while UC and Finance emphasized the program’s focus on foster youth and its high success rates. For the California Community Colleges, Finance outlined the May Revision’s increase to the Student-Centered Funding Formula COLA from 2.41% to 4.31%, along with enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time investments. The Chancellor’s Office supported the flexible “super COLA” approach and asked for more enrollment growth funding, arguing that many districts are already above current targets and that unfunded growth restricts access. The LAO recommended funding at least the statutory COLA, redirecting some ongoing funds to enrollment growth or one-time priorities, and rejecting the $9.7 million Adult Learner Demonstration Project because districts already have incentives to do similar work. Senators pressed Finance and the Chancellor’s Office on the use of COLA funds to cover the new paid pregnancy disability leave requirement, the impact on hold-harmless and basic-aid districts, and whether the state should fund actual enrollment growth rather than a flat COLA. The committee also reviewed California Student Aid Commission proposals, including adjustments to Cal Grant and Middle Class Scholarship funding, continued Golden State Teacher Grant funding, and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance said the Middle Class Scholarship changes reflected updated caseload estimates and that the higher 35% unmet-need level had been one-time funding, while CSAC urged continued support and noted the importance of financial aid for student success. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding as not well-targeted and urged caution on Workforce Pell trailer bill language, citing uncertainty about federal rules, ongoing administrative workload, and the need for clearer implementation planning. Members also raised concerns about declining CADAA applications and the need to better promote state aid for undocumented and mixed-status students. No votes were taken during the transcripted portion, and the committee moved through the agenda items with questions and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• As you weigh very difficult budget decisions in a difficult budget year, I urge you to restore and sustain
• The governor's budget also proposes, as Ms.
• The governor's budget also proposes, as Ms.
• That has not been adjusted for the budget.
• The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections and Public Safety, The Senate Budget Subcommittee

Summary: The committee heard budget and workload presentations from the Office of the State Public Defender, legal aid organizations, and the Judicial Branch. OSPD requested permanent funding for positions that had been temporarily funded to implement the Racial Justice Act, explaining that the work has become ongoing and now includes additional Supreme Court briefing, habeas proceedings, investigations, expert analysis, and data requests. The State Public Defender also presented the AB 625 public defense workload report, which found statewide staffing shortages, caseloads above recommended standards, and major gaps in investigators and support staff. Senators asked about racial bias claims, the volume of data requests, and the impact of Prop. 36, and OSPD said it would provide additional written information. The legal aid panel asked for a $50 million increase to the Equal Access Fund, $20 million to restart homelessness prevention services, and $10 million for health care access work, while also supporting Access to Justice Commission requests for loan repayment assistance, immigrant family preparedness services, and innovation grants. Witnesses described legal aid as homelessness prevention and cited examples involving eviction defense, domestic violence survivors, and immigration detention cases. Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Sergio Tapia discussed eviction data, low tenant representation, and court pilots in Compton and at Stanley Mosk that combine mediation, rental assistance, and legal help. Senators asked for service maps, outreach materials, and more detail on funding needs and federal funding losses. For the Judicial Branch overview, the Judicial Council and trial court representatives supported the Governor’s proposed budget, including $70 million for trial court operations, $21.7 million for employee health and retirement costs, and funding for appellate counsel, case processing, and courthouse construction. They said rising costs, staffing retention, and interpreter shortages continue to strain the courts, and described efforts to reallocate interpreter funds and recruit hard-to-find languages such as Mixteco. Senators pressed the branch and the Department of Finance on courthouse facilities, noting that the long-term need is far larger than the current budget proposal; Finance said the branch’s facility needs were estimated at about $22.5 billion over 10 years to start 68 projects and $29.4 billion to complete the remaining projects. The committee requested follow-up information on facilities, judgeships, and interpreter needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• budget.
• budget.
• </c> into our budget. into our budget.
• . budget. budget.
• No budget in a year budget isn't either.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we acknowledge in our budget, our Governor's budget documents, that we are working with counties to
• That is part of the Governor's budget proposals to live within the budget forecast that the Department
• We don't have anything in the Governor's budget for counties.
• We're working very hard as a full budget committee.
• We don't have a number that was part of the Governor's budget.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on the impacts of H.R. 1 and related federal actions on Covered California, Medi-Cal, and immigrant access to care. The chair framed the discussion around three main issues: expected losses in marketplace coverage as enhanced federal premium subsidies expire, new federal work and renewal requirements that would add administrative burden to Medi-Cal, and the loss of eligibility for certain lawfully present immigrants. Covered California testified that H.R. 1 and new federal rules, combined with the end of enhanced premium tax credits, are driving higher premiums, lower new enrollment, and more cancellations, especially among middle-income, Latino, and Black enrollees. The agency said California’s $190 million state subsidy program is helping lower-income enrollees but cannot replace the lost federal assistance, and it noted that roughly 120,000 lawfully present immigrants in Covered California will lose federal tax credits in 2027. On Medi-Cal, the Department of Health Care Services said H.R. 1 will require work and community engagement verification, six-month renewals for certain adults, and other changes that the department expects will reduce enrollment substantially. DHCS estimated 233,000 members could lose coverage by June 2027 from the work requirement and 289,000 from six-month renewals, with losses rising much higher by 2028; it also said it is using automation, outreach, clinic navigators, coverage ambassadors, community health workers, and street medicine providers to reduce procedural disenrollments. The department described a two-phase outreach plan and said it is working with counties on implementation, while the Department of Finance said the Governor’s budget maintains $190 million for the state subsidy program and does not propose additional changes at this time. The LAO said its independent forecast is somewhat higher than the administration’s, estimating about 2.1 million fewer Medi-Cal enrollees by June 2028, and urged the Legislature to review county administrative workload and readiness. Public testimony and member comments focused on the human and fiscal consequences of coverage losses. A representative from the Sacramento Native American Health Center warned that reduced reimbursement and coverage losses would destabilize community health centers, increase uncompensated care, and worsen outcomes by pushing patients into emergency care. Members raised concerns about paperwork burdens, county capacity, outreach effectiveness, and whether the state should do more to preserve coverage, including possible modeling of additional H-CARF spending and support for middle-income consumers and immigrant enrollees. The hearing did not take any votes or formal actions, but it ended with public comment and continued discussion of implementation and budget options.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before I introduce my colleagues, I would like to say a few words about some of the issues and the budget
• The operating side of the budget is also very important.
• THE OPERATING SIDE OF THE BUDGET IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT.
• In fact, in her State of the State message and in her budget, the Governor commented on the fact that
• There are other issues that are important to students that we highlighted in our one-house budget bill

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Higher Education Conference Committee met to discuss budget priorities for SUNY, CUNY, community colleges, TAP, student aid, and capital funding. Chair Toby Ann Stavisky emphasized the need for increased operating and capital support, protection against enrollment-based funding losses, no tuition increases, a review of TAP because it has not kept pace with living costs, and action on student loan access and research funding cuts. Assembly Chair Alicia Hyndman outlined the Assembly’s higher education proposal, including $475.7 million to expand TAP eligibility, raising income thresholds for TAP and the Excelsior Scholarship, creating a graduate tuition assistance program, adding community college operating aid, expanding the Opportunity Promise Scholarship, forgiving SUNY hospital debt service, increasing CUNY operating support, restoring opportunity program funding, creating a $110 million student loan support program called New York Rises, and funding five-year capital plans for SUNY and CUNY plus additional ECAP grants. Members broadly supported making higher education more affordable and accessible, while highlighting district-specific needs. Senator May praised SUNY Reconnect, community college workforce programs, hospital debt service relief, and a five-year SUNY capital plan. Senator Gonzalez framed the budget as an investment in economic mobility. Senator Griffo supported affordability, operating and capital aid, and additional support for medical schools and hospitals. Assembly Members Walker, Colton, and Fall backed TAP expansion, opportunity programs, disability supports, SUNY Downstate’s transformation, and capital needs at CUNY and SUNY campuses. Assembly Member Smullen, speaking for the minority conference, urged a five-way budget process, said TAP has not kept pace with inflation, and called for a more stable long-term funding model for community colleges. He also stressed aligning higher education with workforce needs. Assembly Member Pirozzolo pointed to the College of Staten Island as an example of the benefits of investment and warned that employers recruiting students directly from high school could weaken higher education unless colleges continue strengthening trade and career training. The meeting ended with no vote on the budget items, and the chairs adjourned the conference committee after concluding remarks.

Transcript Highlights:

• budget.
• Flat budget.
• budget.
• and see where they're over-budgeted and take some of that budget away.
• dollar budget.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before this budget, I will speak in relation to the House budget.
• Before this budget, I will speak in relation to the House budget.
• </c> as well as paragraphs on budget as well as paragraphs on budget implementation<00:22:50.840><c>
• ,</c><00:28:37.800><c> we</c> relative to the House budget, we relative to the House budget, we eliminate
• </c> the budget the budget and<00:45:39.400><c> uh</c> and uh and uh showing<00:45:40.800><c> his</c>

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So is the budget still balanced without the bill?
• If the bill does not pass, the budget would have a gap.
• The budget would have a gap as well as the current fiscal year budget would have a sizable gap if the
• after we did the budget last time coming out of the White House.
• They undermine our state budget already under stress.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on H. 4975, Governor Healey’s bill to manage the impact of the federal “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OB3) on Massachusetts tax law and state revenues. Administration officials, led by Secretary of Administration and Finance Matt Gorowitz, said OB3 would otherwise reduce FY26 revenue by about $442 million and argued for a phased-in conformity approach that would preserve the current-year budget while still adopting selected federal business tax provisions over time. The proposal would phase in the research and experimental expenditure deduction first, delay other major corporate provisions for two years, extend the pass-through entity excise to income subject to the 4% surtax, add a one-year delay mechanism for future federal tax changes over $20 million, limit opportunity zone benefits to Massachusetts investments, and make smaller technical changes to DFML contributions and casino reporting thresholds. Committee members questioned the rationale for phasing in rather than fully decoupling, the effect on the budget if the bill did not pass, and the treatment of opportunity zones, the surtax, and future federal tax changes. Public testimony was split. MassBudget, Progressive Massachusetts, and several labor and public-sector groups urged the committee to permanently decouple from the federal corporate tax changes rather than delay them, arguing that the bill would still send state revenue to corporate tax breaks, often for investments outside Massachusetts, and that the state should protect funding for schools, health care, human services, and other public services. The Massachusetts Society of CPAs supported the administration’s timing and the research-and-development provisions, citing filing deadlines and the importance of certainty for businesses and startups. Business and tax experts also testified that rushed conformity can create revenue losses and that the governor’s review-and-delay framework was a prudent improvement, though some said decoupling should be the default if the Legislature does not act. Unite Here Local 26 testified against sections 3 and 4, which would raise the slot-machine jackpot reporting threshold from $1,200 to $2,000, arguing the current threshold helps with problem-gambling intervention, preserves slot attendant jobs, and generates revenue. Several union leaders, including the Massachusetts Teachers Association, AFT Massachusetts, SEIU 509, the Massachusetts Building Trades, the AFL-CIO, and 1199 SEIU, urged permanent decoupling, warning that OB3’s federal tax cuts and related spending reductions would worsen budget pressures, harm public services, and shift costs onto workers, patients, and schools. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• the budget we're considering this year.
• For CalFresh, the governor's budget reflects a net increase of $300 million General Fund in the budget
• in the 2025 Budget Act.
• The budget reflects them?
• As mentioned before, the governor's budget maintains mostly a workload budget.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the impacts of H.R. 1 on California’s safety net, focusing on Medi-Cal and CalFresh. The chair and vice chair framed the discussion around major federal changes to work requirements, eligibility redeterminations, immigrant eligibility, and financing rules, while noting the state’s own structural budget deficit and the need for a second hearing later in March on county and safety-net impacts. The first panel included the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, the UC Berkeley Labor Center, and the Food Research and Action Center. LAO and Finance described H.R. 1 as driving major enrollment losses and cost shifts. LAO estimated that Medi-Cal work requirements and six-month redeterminations could affect 3.5 million people, with 1 to 2 million potentially disenrolled, while CalFresh changes could subject more than 800,000 people to work requirements and cause over 600,000 to lose food assistance. They also highlighted new ineligibility for certain non-citizens, reduced federal matching for emergency Medi-Cal services, tighter provider tax rules, and higher state and county administrative costs for CalFresh. Finance said the governor’s budget reflects about $1.4 billion in new General Fund costs in 2026-27 and a $2.4 billion reduction in federal funds, with larger out-year impacts and up to 2 million Medi-Cal disenrollments by 2029-30. The UC Berkeley Labor Center projected up to 3 million Californians could lose full-scope Medi-Cal by 2028 when H.R. 1 is combined with state budget changes, though it said the state could limit losses by choosing not to apply some new requirements to state-funded populations and by keeping some immigrants in full-scope state-funded coverage. The Food Research and Action Center argued that CalFresh cuts and time limits would increase hunger, homelessness risk, and health costs, while also hurting local economies and increasing administrative burden. Committee members from both parties questioned the fiscal sustainability of Medi-Cal growth, the 11% CalFresh error rate and possible $2 billion penalty, county indigent care costs, and the effect of work requirements; several Democratic members argued the federal changes and state cuts would disproportionately harm low-income Californians, immigrants, and communities of color, while Republican members emphasized program growth, work incentives, and the need for budget restraint. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review will come to order.
• Today, we will hear an early action bill, Assembly Bill 106, a budget bill junior amending the 2025 Budget
• that amends the 2025 Budget Act, as was stated.
• Now, a budget is a statement.
• And in the current budget and the proposal for the upcoming budget, a goose egg well describes the amount

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 106, an early-action budget bill providing $90 million one-time General Fund to support reproductive health providers affected by the federal H.R. 1 prohibition on Medicaid funding. Department of Finance staff explained that the money would be distributed as grants through the Department of Health Care Access and Information because affected providers, including Planned Parenthood affiliates, can no longer bill Medi-Cal during the federal restriction period. Members also discussed why the amount increased from an earlier $60 million estimate, with Finance saying the figure was updated based on more recent claims and provider data. The committee debate focused heavily on whether the state should backfill this federal cut, the use of grants rather than loans, and provisions exempting contracts and some records from public disclosure. Supporters argued the bill preserves essential preventive and reproductive health services such as cancer screenings, contraception, STI testing, and prenatal care, and said the federal action was a targeted attack on Planned Parenthood and related services. Opponents questioned the spending priority amid other budget pressures, including rural hospitals, developmental disability services, Proposition 36 funding, and transparency concerns. Several members also noted that the funding is not for abortion services themselves, since federal Medicaid funds cannot be used for abortion, but for broader clinic operations and patient care. Public testimony was overwhelmingly in support from Planned Parenthood affiliates, health advocacy groups, medical associations, and some county representatives, with a few speakers using the opportunity to raise unrelated budget concerns such as Medi-Cal dental cuts, IHSS reductions, housing, and public hospital funding. After testimony, the committee voted 12-4 to pass AB 106 out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• programs in the budget year. 4,745 positions to support the department's programs in the budget year
• So these are... these were implemented to address the budget challenges as part of the 2025 Budget Act
• So Prop. 35 is in calendar year, and then we budget obviously in budget year.
• as a budget solution.
• So right now it's in the budget, the January budget, that $200 million is going to be added to the fund

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the Department of Health Care Services’ proposed budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds budget and projected Medi-Cal enrollment decline as redeterminations continue. Members focused heavily on the fiscal and programmatic effects of prior budget solutions and federal changes, especially the elimination of General Fund-supported Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, the hospice utilization-management change, and the impact of reduced caseloads alongside rising health care costs. DHCS said it is still completing required access and rate-reduction analyses for the dental cuts and has been engaging stakeholders, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect on utilization or provider participation. The committee also reviewed the November 2025 Medi-Cal local assistance estimate, which shows higher General Fund spending despite lower enrollment, driven by managed care rate growth, Medicare cost growth, state-only claiming, and federal policy changes. The hearing then turned to provider taxes and federal H.R. 1 constraints, with extensive discussion of the MCO tax, the hospital quality assurance fee, and other health care-related taxes. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 phases down allowable tax levels and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, making the current MCO tax structure and the proposed higher hospital fee levels difficult or impossible to renew as originally designed. Staff and the LAO described the tradeoff between preserving Medi-Cal funding and avoiding higher costs on private providers and consumers. Members asked about options for preserving revenue, including possible amendments to Prop. 35 or returning to voters, and were told the department is still evaluating approaches while federal guidance remains in flux. The committee also reviewed hospital payment increases already implemented through state-directed payments, with DHCS noting that H.R. 1 will force those payments down to Medicare levels over time. Several budget change proposals were discussed and left open, including requests tied to the managed care final rule, managed care operations, hospital value strategy, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability requirements. The committee also heard about a one-year trailer bill extension for skilled nursing facility financing, including continuation of the SNF workforce standards program, the SNF quality assurance fee, and annual rate growth, while the department develops a longer-term financing redesign for 2027-28. Members expressed skepticism about repeated rate reform efforts and questioned whether a one-year extension of the eliminated workforce quality incentive program should be restored during the transition. Finally, Covered California presented its budget and enrollment update, reporting that the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit is expected to reduce affordability significantly, with average premiums roughly doubling for many enrollees and as many as 400,000 Californians potentially losing marketplace coverage over time. The exchange said California’s $190 million subsidy program is helping lower-income enrollees, but not enough to offset the federal loss, and it is also implementing a new gender-affirming care benefit and awaiting federal action on benchmark plan changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• The 2022 Budget Act agreement established a new funding floor starting in this budget year, 2025-26,
• Now onto the Governor's budget proposals.
• Finally, the Governor's budget also proposes to fund enrollment...
• investments, and the potential budget investments that will come this June.
• We are in strong support of the Governor's proposed budget. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing focused on California Community College budget proposals. Chair Alvarez opened by emphasizing the system’s role in access, transfer, workforce training, and serving more than 2 million students, while also noting persistent challenges in enrollment, persistence, transfer, and graduation. Public commenters and system representatives broadly supported COLA, enrollment growth funding, deferred maintenance, student support block grants, and additional flexibility for districts facing uncertainty. The first major panel covered the student-centered funding formula, COLA, and enrollment growth. The Department of Finance said the Governor proposes a 2.43% COLA ($230.4 million) and 0.5% enrollment growth funding ($30.4 million). The LAO said the COLA was reasonable and recommended funding at least the proposed growth amount, citing uneven enrollment recovery and regional differences. The Chancellor’s Office supported both proposals and asked for additional changes, including using the greater of current-year or three-year average for apportionments and lifting the 10% local enrollment cap, arguing these would better fund growing districts. Members questioned how the formula works, whether SCFF is improving outcomes, and how much additional funding would be needed under different growth scenarios. The committee then reviewed categorical program COLAs, Rising Scholars, career education proposals, IT proposals, and student housing. The Governor proposed a 2.43% COLA for selected categorical programs ($31.9 million). For Rising Scholars, the Governor proposed $30 million ongoing and removal of the cap on participating colleges; the LAO urged waiting for outcome data before doubling funding, while the Chancellor’s Office said the program is serving more students and supports equity for justice-impacted students. On career education, the Governor proposed $50 million for credit for prior learning and $50 million for a career passport; the LAO supported more reporting on credit for prior learning but recommended rejecting the career passport as too undefined, while the Chancellor’s Office supported both. On technology, the Governor proposed $162.5 million for a common cloud data platform and $168 million for a common ERP system; the LAO said both were premature or lacked sufficient planning and recommended rejection, while the Chancellor’s Office argued they would improve real-time data, security, and systemwide efficiency. The committee also heard an update on student housing: the administration said the 2024 shift to a lease-revenue bond model remains in progress for 13 approved projects, with 11 still active, and members asked about withdrawn projects and possible use of any returned funds. No votes were taken, and several items were held open for further discussion and May Revision updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• But there will be things that you don't like in this budget because every budget is that way.
• The health care budget bill, which contains provisions needed to implement the fiscal year 2027 budget
• needed to implement the FY 2027 budget.
• Members, yes, but we are telling ourselves that, so we are not using any of the budget surplus, the budget
• It comes out of our budget.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• budgets, as those proposed budgets must be submitted to the ESDs for review and comment.
• school board meetings when pertinent budget information is on the agenda.
• As I look at it, the additional budget and oversight duties that I spoke to, in terms of the budget review
• So every school district has to turn their budget into an ESD to be approved.
• So every school district has to turn their budget into an ESD to be approved.

Summary: The House Education Committee heard several bills focused on school district operations, student access, and special education. Substitute Senate Bill 6222 would allow school districts and educational service districts to sell or grant surplus technology hardware, such as laptops and tablets, directly to public school students, with priority for low-income students and documentation of the transfer. Testimony from the sponsor, district staff, and advocates emphasized helping students keep familiar devices, reducing waste, and extending the public investment in technology. The committee also heard Second Substitute Senate Bill 5969, which would better integrate IEP transition plans with the statewide online IEP system and the universal high school and beyond plan platform to reduce duplication; staff noted a fiscal note had been requested, and there were no public testifiers on the bill. The committee spent substantial time on Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6247, a school district financial management bill. The bill would require additional ESD oversight and support for districts showing signs of financial distress, create mandatory school director training on funding and finance, strengthen penalties for knowing violations of budget expenditure limits, and require disclosure authorizations before hiring certain budget or accounting personnel. Senator Dozier said the bill was prompted by district financial problems, declining enrollment, failed levies, and reserve fund declines. ESD, WSSDA, WASA, WOSBO, and OSPI testified in support overall, though some witnesses raised concerns about mandatory training, funding for implementation, and whether training should extend beyond school directors. Committee members asked about the bill’s scope, the undefined term “significantly,” the $750,000 reimbursement cap, and how it compared with House Bill 2593. The committee also heard Substitute Senate Bill 622, which would exempt school districts and ESDs from certain surplus-property notice requirements when selling or granting surplus technology hardware to students at depreciated cost or no cost to low-income students. Senator Hunt said the bill came from constituent concerns about unused laptops and tablets and would help students transition to work, college, or technical school. Zero Waste Washington and an Issaquah School District official supported the measure, citing environmental benefits and practical student access to technology. The committee closed public hearings on the bills, noted sign-in counts for pro and con positions, and announced amendment deadlines and upcoming executive sessions.