Transcript Highlights:

• with funds that are transferred from within the university and from component units for capital projects
• that are appropriated by the state legislature for capital projects, along with funds that are transferred
• So they define state funds or public funds as general revenue appropriated from state State trust funds
• No other state funds can be transferred to a DSO because that's...
• No other state funds can be transferred to a DSO because that's what statute says unless it's to pay

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee met to hear an overview of State University System finances from the Board of Governors and detailed budget presentations from Florida State University, the University of Central Florida, and the University of North Florida. The witnesses explained how university budgets are organized into fund categories such as education and general, contracts and grants, auxiliaries, local/designated funds, capital projects, and component units such as direct support organizations. They also described carry forward funds, the statutory reserve and spending-plan requirements, the PICO/HECO capital outlay process, and how universities use investment accounts, audits, and board oversight to manage restricted and unspent funds. The universities emphasized that most operating dollars are restricted to specific uses and that state support helps keep tuition low. Members asked about differences in funding levels among institutions, especially why FSU receives more funding than UCF despite lower enrollment. Officials said preeminence funding, performance funding, and special legislative appropriations explain much of the difference, and the Board of Governors noted that Florida now has four preeminent universities, with UCF nearing that status. Questions also focused on what happens to unspent carry forward money, how it is invested, and whether the Board of Governors or Legislature can require funds to be returned; officials said the money is invested conservatively, subject to board and audit oversight, and can roll forward under a detailed spending plan, though the Legislature can change funding levels. The committee also discussed capital projects, with members asking about delays, inflation, and whether more projects should be phased or funded faster; witnesses said PICO funds remain with the state until needed and are reimbursed as construction proceeds. A substantial portion of the discussion covered athletics, research, student fees, and endowments. The universities said athletics is generally expected to be self-supporting, though limited use of auxiliary or carry forward funds may be allowed for projects benefiting the broader student body. They also described the financial pressures from name, image, and likeness changes and new NCAA-related costs, and said institutions are planning for those changes now. On research, the universities explained sponsored research funding, indirect cost recovery, compliance obligations, and tech transfer, but did not provide specific commercialization revenue figures and said they would follow up. Members also asked about student fee increases, student input, counseling and wellness funding, and how housing costs affect affordability; the universities said student committees and boards review fees, and aid packaging is intended to keep student debt low. Endowments were described as being held in separate foundations/DSOs with independent investment committees and used mainly for scholarships, faculty support, and research.

Transcript Highlights:

• fund, $12,000 federal fund, um general fund, $12,000 federal fund, and<00:08:19.120><c> $577,000</c>
• funds.
• ><c> S1</c> swap of funds from general fund to S1 swap of funds from general fund to S1 reverting<00:
• . funds. funds.
• </c> fund as well. fund as well.

Bills: SF0032 , SF0010 , SF0001 , HB0001

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• : the revolving fund for wastewater and the revolving fund for drinking water, which have been the principal
• We were ready for your funding question.
• The idea is that through the funds that they're already spending through that, and then additional funds
• There's currently about $3 million remaining in the fund.
• So I wanted to come up and answer questions specifically about funding after... ...questions about funding

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

Summary: The hearing covered a broad set of environmental and water-related bills, with much of the testimony focused on blue economy and circular economy proposals, drought management, drinking water safety, flood resilience, and water infrastructure funding. Supporters of bills such as H. 987 and H. 988 described grant programs for blue economy workforce development, research, small businesses, and public education about a circular economy. Other speakers backed measures on coastal erosion research, recreational boating dredging, cranberry water-right transfers, sand mining oversight, and a voucher program for home water filtration in PFAS-impacted communities. Several elected officials and advocates also urged passage of bills to require private well testing, improve school drinking water safety, and address sand mining pollution and PFAS contamination. Water supply and drought issues drew extensive testimony. Senator Eldridge and others supported legislation to let the state, through DEP and the drought management task force, impose regional water-use restrictions during droughts and make the task force permanent in statute. Advocates from watershed groups, farms, and environmental organizations said the current town-by-town approach is inconsistent and ineffective, and they described drought impacts on rivers, farms, private wells, and wildfire risk. A related bill on private wells was supported as a way to help homeowners test and remediate contaminated wells, especially in rural areas without public water. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to allow the Lynnfield Water District to join the MWRA, with local officials saying the move would help address PFAS and other contamination and improve supply reliability. Another major panel supported a water infrastructure funding bill, arguing that aging drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems need major new investment, including support for PFAS treatment, sewer rate relief, biosolids research, and regional interconnections. Members asked about costs, funding sources, and the relationship to existing revolving loan funds; witnesses said the bill would need to be paired with future bond funding and new revenue ideas. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chairs repeatedly invited written testimony and noted the large number of speakers.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have so signed. dominance fund an act relating to the dominance fund an act relating to the administration
• We brought in the language from the wildlife trust fund.
• We brought in the language from the wildlife trust fund.
• </c> carefully so it couldn't be transferred carefully so it couldn't be transferred over<02:54:00.000
• funds to the<03:05:51.359><c> 100</c><03:05:51.840><c> series.

Transcript Highlights:

• That resulted in the difficult transfer of youth to the Kearney YRTC.
• And so then we fix up Whitehall and then we transfer them back?
• So what's the plan if there were a transfer to occur?
• I mean, didn't you talk about credit transfer?
• There’s no way to simply transfer the existing Whitehall license to a new building or simply transfer

Summary: The Health and Human Services Committee held an invited-testimony hearing on LR 425, which examines the Whitehall campus in Lincoln and possible long-term options for youth currently served there. Chair Brian Hardin explained that Whitehall houses two separate programs for adolescent males: a substance use program and a youth-who-sexually-harm program. Testimony from DHHS officials described Whitehall as a Joint Commission-accredited psychiatric residential treatment facility (PRTF) that provides about 40 hours of weekly programming, family involvement, school services, and community reintegration activities. Officials said the department is evaluating whether the programs should remain at Whitehall or move to another state-owned facility, with Hastings described as the department’s preferred alternative because it is more residential in design than a youth rehabilitation treatment center (YRTC).

Transcript Highlights:

• And so then we fix up Whitehall and then we transfer them back?
• So what's the plan if there were a transfer to occur?
• I mean, didn't you talk about credit transfer?
• There's no way to simply transfer the existing Whitehall license to a new building or simply transfer
• transfer to PRTF.

Committee: Unicameral Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> funding to this initiative. funding to this initiative.
• :10:34.560><c> updates</c><00:10:34.959><c> and</c> will fund much needed updates and will fund much
• </c> of potential damaging to this funding of potential damaging to this funding and<00:26:37.840><c>
• </c> buildings were transferred to Fairview. buildings were transferred to Fairview.
• . funding. funding.

Committee: House Higher Education Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill before you is Senate Bill 5922 relating to transportation vehicle fund transfers.
• These payments are kept in a transportation vehicle fund and may not be transferred to any other fund
• These payments are kept in a transportation vehicle fund and may not be transferred to any other fund
• If by chance that it will not impact their transportation vehicle fund to be able to transfer those,
• be able to transfer those, if the issues are involved with their operating funds, which is what we're

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several education bills. SB 5841 would require students’ high school and beyond plans to show completion of at least one FAFSA or WASFA application, or a parent/guardian opt-out. The sponsor and supporters said it would reduce barriers to postsecondary education, improve financial aid completion, and bring more students and federal dollars into the state. School groups opposed it, warning it would add an unfunded administrative burden and create verification challenges, especially for small districts and families with undocumented students. Senators discussed data-sharing from the Washington Student Achievement Council and noted the bill’s connection to existing FAFSA outreach efforts. The committee then took testimony on SB 5922, which would let districts petition OSPI to transfer money from transportation vehicle funds to other district uses if they reduce their fleet because of enrollment declines. The sponsor said the bill would free up unused bus funds for other pressing needs. Members asked about whether districts could shift to smaller vehicles and how the funds could be used. The committee also heard SB 5858, which would move the pupil transportation safety net for special passengers into statute. Supporters from OSPI, districts, school directors, and PTA said the program is essential for transporting students with disabilities, homelessness, or foster care needs, and that current funding is far below demonstrated need. No votes were taken on these bills. Finally, the committee heard SB 5943, which would allow limited use of school impact fees for modernization and, in districts under binding conditions or enhanced financial oversight, for up to 25% of operations and maintenance. The sponsor and one superintendent argued it would help districts with aging buildings and new state mandates like safety and energy-efficiency requirements. Builders, business groups, and school coalition representatives opposed the bill, saying impact fees should remain tied to growth-related capital costs and warning it could worsen housing affordability and weaken the nexus required for impact fees. The chair closed by noting the session’s budget constraints and the committee adjourned after the hearings.

Transcript Highlights:

• transfer money to the ratepayers instead of the renewable energy fund as well as make sure that the
• </c> renewable energy fund renewable energy fund transfer<00:06:55.520><c> money</c><00:06:55.840><c>
• any money was transferred either to the general fund or paid back to ratepayers. they say they say fund
• </c> fund those and then transfer the money. fund those and then transfer the money.
• </c> would be a transfer to the general fund would be a transfer to the general fund to<00:19:28.000>

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> those transfer stations up and running. those transfer stations up and running.
• </c> GAP funding has been um provided. GAP funding has been um provided.
• and trying to figure out how we were going to fund these transfer stations. and also um different partners
• Arapahoe Transfer Station.
• So, uh, those funds don't results.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Tribal Relations

Transcript Highlights:

• Our fund, a relief special fund, is funded to around 120%, maybe a little off now with the current markets
• fully funded.
• So is the alternative then to wait until we're 105% funded or 110% funded?
• So is the alternative then to wait until we're 105% funded or 110% funded?
• Chair, members, just to respond to the 100% funding: we're not opposed to being 100% funded.

Transcript Highlights:

• trust fund is required to transfer any remaining balances at the end of the biennium to X dot, which
• The tables here show the funds eligible to receive TWF transfers and an implementation implementation
• million of the initial $1 billion deposited to the TWF as a the transfer to capitalize that fund.
• The agency used a transfer of $149.3 million. from the TWF to the State Water Implementation Fund for
• The fund still uses transfers from general revenue for studies and. and regional water planning group

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Articles VI, VII, & VIII

Transcript Highlights:

• But it comes, and it is a wealth transfer.
• We transfer it from this place, or the state transfers it to UL or McNeese or whoever, and money does
• So the legislative committee wanted a one-time transfer for 9th, 10th, and 11th...
• But I don't think this bill has anything to do with a one-time transfer.
• Or misappropriation of funds.

Committee: House Education

Summary: The committee heard several higher education and K-12 bills centered on TOPS, school accountability, and curriculum alignment. It first welcomed University of Louisiana at Lafayette’s new president, Ramesh Kuluru, who spoke about student success, workforce alignment, and the university’s financial recovery. The committee then adopted amendments and reported HR 17 favorably, directing a study of TOPS return on investment with the Board of Regents, Louisiana Works, LED, and the Blanco Public Policy Center. Testimony from business and policy groups supported the study as a way to assess whether state financial aid is producing workforce and retention outcomes. Members then considered HB 385 by Rep. Bamberg, which would require repayment of TOPS awards under certain circumstances when students lose eligibility, with exemptions for hardship and a pathway into LCTCS or career-technical programs. The bill drew strong debate over whether merit scholarships should ever be repaid; opponents argued TOPS is earned for the semester and should only be lost going forward, while supporters emphasized taxpayer accountability. After amendments, the committee narrowly approved the bill by roll call vote, with Chair Schlegel casting the deciding yes to report it favorably as amended. The committee also unanimously reported HB 1058 favorably, which requires the Board of Regents to maintain a uniform data system for state financial assistance; independent colleges and business groups supported the measure as a way to improve accountability and analysis. The committee next heard HB 406 by Speaker Pro Tem Johnson, which asks the Department of Education to study the feasibility of moving oversight of interscholastic athletics to a more accountable model after a legislative study found widespread complaints about the private LHSAA’s transparency and consistency. Supporters said the bill is a cautious step toward reform and a possible 2028–2029 transition, while an LHSAA representative defended current audits and governance and opposed the premise of the bill. Despite objections, the committee reported HB 406 favorably. It then heard HB 787 by Rep. McMakin, as substituted, which would exempt non-public high school students from the TOPS computer science requirement; BESE and the Department of Education opposed the bill, saying it would separate diploma and TOPS requirements and create scheduling confusion, while Catholic school representatives said the requirement conflicts with their theology curriculum. McMakin asked to defer the bill for two weeks. Finally, the committee unanimously reported HB 1059 favorably, which aligns TOPS math requirements with BESE’s integrated math pathways, and began hearing HB 1021 by Rep. Egan on repayment of certain TOPS awards, though the transcript cuts off before that bill was completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• , campus reserves, ongoing core funds, whether it would be ongoing General Fund or tuition revenue.
• And while campuses fund some repairs each year, the state General Fund allocation can't meet the needs
• We do fund debt with our General Fund.
• service with General Fund support.
• Gymnasiums were in a separate funding category eligible for only 15% of funds allocated in any given

Summary: The committee’s first major discussion focused on higher education facilities across UC, CSU, and the community colleges, with Chair Alvarez framing the issue as a final budget hearing before the May Revise. The LAO presented findings that campuses have grown substantially in buildings and square footage, while classroom and lab utilization remains below legislative standards and deferred maintenance backlogs continue to rise. The LAO also emphasized that the state and segments lack comprehensive data on capital renewal spending and recommended better reporting, clearer funding targets, and long-term planning for renewal and maintenance. UC, CSU, and community college representatives each described large five-year capital plans, aging facilities, seismic and deferred maintenance needs, and the role of student housing, while noting that construction costs are rising faster than inflation. Members questioned the segments about debt service, utilization rates, and how projects are prioritized. UC said its debt service tied to state support is about $665 million annually and described a $30 billion five-year capital financial plan, including housing, medical centers, and building renewal. CSU said it has about $31 billion in five-year needs and more than $8 billion in deferred maintenance, with funding coming from a mix of state-related and one-time sources since the state shifted capital responsibility to CSU. Community colleges said their unmet facilities needs total about $33.5 billion and explained their use of a scoring matrix and FUSION system to rank projects. The chair and members pressed all three systems to better distinguish between projects that are truly shovel-ready and those that are long-term needs, and discussed whether facilities condition data, total cost of ownership, and more standardized metrics should guide future bond proposals. The committee then turned to Proposition 2 and the Governor’s proposed community college capital outlay projects. The Department of Finance said Prop. 2 provides $1.5 billion for community colleges and that the Governor’s budget proposes 29 projects, with two continuing Prop. 51 projects also included. The LAO supported the overall use of the funds but raised concerns about the current 65/35 split between modernization and growth, the unusually large share of gymnasium projects, and some scoring metrics that favor larger campuses and certain regions. Community college officials said the scoring system was developed through participatory governance and would take one to two years to revise, but they supported the funding and agreed to follow up on questions about project categories and the rationale for the weighting. Members also suggested giving more weight to modernization, regional access, and intersegmental or collaborative projects. A final item addressed the CalKids program. The Department of Finance proposed $56,000 ongoing General Fund for three positions, while the LAO recommended approving two positions but rejecting a manager position until the current $7.5 million marketing campaign is evaluated. ScholarShare’s executive director said CalKids has enrolled more than 5 million children, with nearly 600,000 claims and over $45 million distributed, and argued that additional staff and outreach are needed to reach a goal of 1 million claimed scholarships by the end of 2025 and to implement AB 2808. Members asked about marketing effectiveness, data sharing, and eligibility rules, and the program said it is expanding partnerships with Cradle to Career and CSAC. No final vote was taken in the hearing, and the chair indicated the facilities item would be held open.

Transcript Highlights:

• fund for two pilots.
• So what I was looking at was the general funds transfer increase, which was a total of $540,000 from
• Federal funds have increased by $10.6 million. The transfer from TRD increased by $1.8 million.
• Although not directly funded with general fund revenue, the agency is highly dependent on general fund
• Although not directly funded with general fund revenue, the agency is highly dependent on general fund

Committees: Senate Senate Finance , Senate House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• of the funds.
• It may be that it's just the transfer of funds. That's a problem to the complaint.
• That it's just the transfer of funds. That's a problem to the complainant.
• Have we any preliminary information on how our funds are doing?
• Chair, we do realize that there is a source of funding potentially with the excess funds from 2034...

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The Executive Committee approved the April minutes by roll call vote, with members present voting aye and the minutes adopted. The committee then received an Attorney General update on several pension-related cases. Counsel discussed the newly filed Dawson class action, which seeks to invalidate Gross Second Substitute House Bill 2034 on federal and state constitutional grounds; she said the pleadings were unclear, the committee’s involvement was uncertain, and the case would need monitoring. She also reported that the Dolan case appears concluded after the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling on constructive payment of attorney fees, and that the Fowler case remains pending after an oral ruling for plaintiffs on retroactive interest and possible disgorgement of state gains, with a written ruling still awaited. The actuarial update said June would include the preliminary 2025 valuation results and contribution-rate discussion, along with commentary on the demographic experience study, and staff noted actuarial resources were limited for additional items until later in the summer or fall. The committee then discussed the interim work plan and correspondence, including letters supporting a Plan 1 COLA recommendation, retiree organization comments, and a request from Senator Robinson to study whether certain animal control technicians should be included in PERS. Members emphasized the need to keep working on an ad hoc COLA for Plan 1 retirees while also exploring a longer-term COLA mechanism, including possible budget proviso language to require COLA consideration each budget cycle. Staff also explained changes to correspondence handling: materials will no longer be posted publicly on the website, but will still be available through public records requests and distributed securely to members by email or form submission. The committee agreed to add a June briefing on the PERS animal control technician issue and an introductory discussion of Plan 3, and to bring back COLA proposals in July for further executive committee review. The agenda was approved as amended, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• per year transfer to the remediation fund, and that brings us to the remediation fund. uh dedicated
• The primary revenue source is the transfer from the Environmental Fund and then a transfer from the Petro
• Fund, the petroleum tank release cleanup fund.
• fund and then a transfer<00:31:34.000><c> from</c><00:31:34.200><c> the</c><00:31:34.360><c> Petro</
• c><00:31:34.840><c> fund</c><00:31:35.120><c> the</c> transfer from the Petro fund the transfer from

Committee: House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, New College, the University of South Florida campus, but there was no transfer of funds to the University
• funding in the budget.
• Yes, new college, the University of South Florida campus, but there was no transfer of funds to the University
• of South Florida for that transfer. of South Florida for that transfer.
• And so we have funded... Senator Brodeur: We've made historic funding in our state parks.

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the conference report on House Bill 501E, the General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2026-27. Budget chairs presented the major spending areas, describing a $114.5 billion overall budget that they said was fiscally responsible and below the prior year’s spending. Highlights included pay increases and retirement adjustments for public safety employees, education funding for K-12, higher education, health and human services, criminal justice, transportation, environmental programs, and agriculture/regulatory agencies. Members then questioned chairs on several items. In education, senators discussed K-12 declining enrollment funding, teacher salary set-asides, private school scholarship spending, mental health funding, preeminence funding for universities, the Hamilton Center at UF, and charter school PICO funding. In health and human services, questions focused on the iBudget waiver waitlist, provider rates, ADAP/HIV funding and the return of Biktarvy to the formulary, KidCare, rural health funding, SNAP-related IT and error reduction efforts, and the IDD managed care program. In criminal justice, senators asked about correctional officer pay, prison staffing and infrastructure, air conditioning in prisons, juvenile justice facilities, law enforcement recruitment, and court system funding. Environmental and transportation questions covered Florida Forever, water quality, state parks, water projects, housing, elections funding, and emergency management. Several specific actions and explanations were given during debate: the budget includes $8.8 million for state attorney competitive area differentials but no funding for public defender CAD requests; assistant state attorneys will start at $70,000 and assistant public defenders at $65,000; the battery disposal issue was described as a temporary study/preemption approach; and the Senate said the budget does not fund Medicaid expansion, preeminence funding, or the SunBucks Summer EBT state share. Senators also noted that some proposals discussed in committee did not make it into the final budget. The transcript ends with debate statements from members praising the budget process and Chair Hooper, while also expressing concerns about public schools, health care access, affordability, and the lack of funding for certain priorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• of funds.
• And are you referring to federal funding or to state funding? Both, if you referenced both.
• I was wondering, my question also relates to funding, drought funding.
• And do you have numbers along this funding? And do you have numbers along this funding?
• So the reason I was asking about the funds, the drought funds, you know, a couple of years ago when we

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Committee on Water Supply During Drought

Summary: The Joint Legislative Committee on Water Supply During Drought received a detailed presentation from Deputy State Climatologist Karen Bumbacco on the conditions that led to Washington’s 2025 drought. She described below-normal snowpack, especially in the Cascades, a very dry January, warm and dry spring and summer conditions, and the compounding effect of three consecutive years of poor snowpack and precipitation. She also outlined the outlook for winter, noting a weak La Niña and a likely wetter-than-normal winter, while cautioning that one wet year would not erase large basin deficits such as in the Upper Yakima. Members asked about the basis for long-range climate projections, microclimates, and hydropower impacts, and Bumbacco explained the difference between weather forecasts and climate modeling and emphasized that statewide averages can mask local variation. Department of Ecology staff Rea Burns and Caroline Melor then reviewed the state’s drought declaration process and response. They explained Washington’s statutory drought threshold of less than 75% of normal water supply plus hardship, and said the state extended the Yakima drought declaration in April and expanded it in June to 19 additional watersheds. They described the role of federal data sources such as NRCS snowpack readings, USGS gauges, NOAA, and the Bureau of Reclamation, and raised concerns about staffing and funding instability affecting those systems. They also summarized drought response tools, including expedited water transfers and emergency grants, and noted that 2023 statutory changes created a $3 million drought emergency response account, though the one-transfer-per-fiscal-year rule could complicate future back-to-back droughts. Committee members asked about the amount of drought funding used, whether any balance remained, and whether drought insurance exists for municipalities; Ecology said the account still has funds available and that they were not aware of municipal drought insurance. Ecology also described severe impacts in the Yakima Basin, where low reservoir storage, three years of drought, and the adjudicated water-right system led to unprecedented curtailment orders in October. Staff said nearly all senior surface-water rights in the basin were turned off, a first for the basin, and that the action was necessary to protect the most senior rights. They credited the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan and prior planning investments with reducing impacts, but said more resilience work is needed. In committee discussion afterward, members raised broader questions about whether the drought fund should be increased, whether reservoirs or other storage projects should be expanded, and whether drought insurance or other long-term tools could help local governments and irrigators. The meeting ended with general agreement that drought is becoming a recurring condition in Washington and that more planning and water conservation will be needed going forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• In June 2022, I had my first IVF transfer, which resulted in an early miscarriage.
• In January 2023, prior to my next IVF transfer, I started twice-a-week intramuscular estrogen shots,
• Thankfully, the transfer was successful, and I continued these shots and medications until 11 weeks of
• In June of 2022, I had my first IVF transfer, which resulted in an early miscarriage.
• In January 2023, prior to my next IVF transfer, I started twice a week intramuscular estrogen shots,

Committee: House Health

Summary: The committee heard several health-related bills, with extensive testimony on maternal health, prenatal safety, valley fever, Medi-Cal care coordination, anti-discrimination protections in health care, and health data sharing. SB 32 would require time-and-distance standards for labor and delivery units in health plans; supporters said it addresses maternity care deserts and dangerous delays, while one opposition witness raised concerns. SB 646 would require testing and public disclosure of toxic elements in prenatal vitamins; supporters emphasized fetal and maternal safety and transparency, while opponents warned the bill could discourage use of prenatal vitamins or lead to products with fewer nutrients. Both bills were moved out of committee on due-pass motions as amended, with recorded roll-call support. The committee also advanced SB 313, which moves a parent’s birthplace from the public portion of a birth certificate to a confidential section to protect privacy; it passed with little opposition. SB 297 would require CDPH to annually identify high-incidence valley fever regions and publish them to improve screening and awareness; supporters cited the disease’s spread beyond the Central Valley and the need for earlier diagnosis, while county health officials were opposed unless amended. SB 324 would steer Medi-Cal enhanced care management and community supports contracting toward local community-based organizations and clarify related guidance; supporters said local nonprofits and promotoras are more effective, while children’s hospitals and health plans sought amendments. SB 418 would codify ACA nondiscrimination protections in state law and allow up to a 12-month supply of medically necessary hormone therapy; supporters framed it as protecting access and continuity of care, while opponents argued it could conflict with federal law and expand coverage for gender-affirming care. SB 660 would strengthen the California health data exchange framework by creating governance and accountability for data sharing across providers and social services; supporters said it would reduce duplication and improve coordinated care, and the bill passed to the next committee. The consent calendar and the other measures were also approved, with some items held on call for absent members before final passage.