Transcript Highlights:

• is being funded with some recurring funds.
• Trust Fund.
• Once they come up with the the master plan and if they need funding for affordable housing, if it, we
• These are projects that need the funding right now. Um, so, um.
• The, the need for efficiency and clarity and how these funds from the state level get deployed is, is

Committee: House Mortgage Finance Authority Act Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• , current funding trajectories fall well short of what is needed to achieve that goal.
• So we don't just need funds to acquire conservation easements.
• We don't just need funds to acquire conservation easements or acquire the lands themselves.
• We need funds not just to protect lands, but to restore them and to steward them, so...
• We need funds not just to protect lands, but to restore them and to steward them.

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition No. 25-15, H.5505, “An Act to Protect Water and Nature.” Committee co-chairs outlined the Article 48 initiative process and explained that the hearing was divided into expert, proponent, opponent, and public-comment sections. The first witness, Undersecretary Stephanie Cooper of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, described current state and federal funding sources for land conservation and outdoor recreation, said existing programs are oversubscribed, and noted that the proposal aligns with the Commonwealth’s 30% land conservation goal by 2030 and 40% by 2050. She also flagged possible governance clarifications in the petition, including board structure and administrative authority, while saying the administration has the expertise to manage such a fund. Proponents from Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, Mount Grace Land Trust, the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, the Authentic Caribbean Foundation, and Bemis Associates argued that Massachusetts needs a dedicated, sustained revenue stream for conservation, clean water, climate resilience, and public access to nature. They said current funding is inconsistent and insufficient, cited estimates that the state may need roughly $300 million or more annually to meet conservation targets, and emphasized benefits to public health, mental health, biodiversity, flood protection, and the outdoor recreation economy. Several speakers said the measure would dedicate a portion of existing sales tax revenue tied to sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses, and that it would support both urban and rural communities, including underserved communities. Committee members pressed witnesses on the bill’s fiscal and constitutional implications, including how much sales tax revenue would be redirected, whether the measure is constitutional, how funds would be allocated among communities, and why the proposal includes certain revenue sources but not others such as ticket sales. Proponents said the measure would likely direct up to about $100 million annually when fully phased in, that it was designed as a “subject to appropriation” mechanism, and that legal review had found it constitutional. They also acknowledged that the proposal would reduce general fund flexibility but argued it would create a long-term investment in natural resources. The hearing concluded after public testimony, and the committee announced it would accept written testimony until March 27 at 5 p.m.; no vote was taken on the petition at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need $21.38 million simply to level fund current services.
• revenue this session in order to fund this and all the other critical needs in our communities.
• revenue this session in order to fund this and all the other critical needs in our communities.
• We really need additional assistance in the MSOC funding area.
• We also need additional funding in the student transportation safety net for those who are McKinney-Vento

Summary: The House Appropriations Committee opened with committee guidelines for the 2026 session, including limits on testimony, amendment deadlines, confidentiality expectations, and professionalism rules. Chair Ormsby also reviewed housekeeping for the public hearing, noting the meeting was recorded and live streamed, and that testimony would be limited to one minute because of the large number of sign-ups. The committee then began its work session on Governor Ferguson’s proposed 2026 supplemental operating budget, presented by OFM Director Katie Chapman, who outlined the state’s fiscal pressures: higher caseloads in major programs, a revenue forecast decline of about $390 million, federal policy changes tied to H.R. 1, inflation, and a relatively small ending fund balance. She said the governor’s budget solves about a $2.3 billion shortfall through nearly $800 million in spending reductions, revenue shifts, fund transfers, use of about $1 billion from the Budget Stabilization Account, and some tax preference changes, while also making targeted investments in areas such as child welfare, behavioral health, wildfire response, housing, and IT modernization. Chapman also explained that the proposal does not fully balance over the four-year outlook under the state’s statutory assumptions, but said the governor relied on the budget-balance law’s exception tied to BSA use and low employment growth. A question from Rep. Connors about credit ratings was answered with the view that the impact is difficult to predict and that Washington’s strong pension funding and balanced-budget framework remain positives. The public hearing drew testimony from state officials and many advocates, most of whom opposed specific cuts or fund shifts in the governor’s proposal. Secretary of State Steve Hobbs objected to proposed sweeps from the corporations and charities fund and the library archives account, citing prior cuts, layoffs, cyberattack-related costs, and the need to upgrade aging systems. Commissioner of Public Lands Dave Upthegrove urged restoration of wildfire prevention funding, saying the proposed amount was still $30 million short of the commitment in House Bill 1168 and that underfunding would increase suppression costs and risk to communities. Many education witnesses opposed reductions to Working Connections Child Care, transition to kindergarten, local effort assistance, Running Start, and higher education across-the-board cuts, arguing they would harm access, equity, and workforce development. Higher education leaders from community colleges, the University of Washington, Western Washington University, and Evergreen State College described staffing cuts, program reductions, and pressure on student services, while K-12 groups and OSPI said the budget would deepen existing funding gaps. A large portion of testimony focused on human services, health, housing, and civil legal aid. Child welfare and youth-serving organizations supported some targeted investments but opposed cuts to child care, child welfare network administration, and youth programs; advocates for foster youth, homeless youth, and mentoring programs asked for continued or increased funding. Health care and long-term care providers warned that proposed Medicaid and rate changes would reduce access for seniors, people with disabilities, and safety-net patients, while Planned Parenthood and abortion access advocates urged full restoration of the Abortion Access Project and related reimbursements. Housing and legal aid witnesses backed the governor’s proposed right-to-counsel funding but asked for more support, and homelessness advocates sought contingency funding for federal housing programs. Crime victim and domestic violence service providers repeatedly said the proposed $12 million was far short of the roughly $21.38 million needed to avoid service cuts and closures. Other testimony addressed the Climate Commitment Account shift for the Working Families Tax Credit, with environmental advocates opposing the diversion of CCA dollars and workforce advocates supporting the governor’s economic security and employment programs. No votes or formal committee action were taken during the hearing portion described in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Anything below the line, we do not have funding this biennium to fund, and they would need to be deferred
• needs for water projects for the next 14 years. ...this study and address anticipated funding needs
• So it was interesting to me that we're talking about 14 years, but then we have funding needs beyond
• But with the funding gap, I think there is a need to make a decision on prioritization of the projects
• So then if you look at the total estimated funds needed, the completion is about $762 million.

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met with a quorum and heard updates from Department of Water Resources Director Reese Haas and Lieutenant Governor/State Water Commission Chair Michelle Strinden on statewide water funding, major projects, and two legislative studies requested in House Bill 1020. Haas reviewed the status of the Northwest Area Water Supply and Southwest Pipeline projects, noting NAWS construction is expected to move water by fall and Southwest’s Hebron-Rugby expansion phase one is in final design with bids expected next month. He also summarized the department’s budget outlook, including Resources Trust Fund and Water Project Stabilization Fund balances, the effect of oil price volatility and stripper well exemptions on revenues, and the status of project buckets, carryover, lines of credit, regionalization, bid trends, and administrative/process updates. Committee members asked about project prioritization, municipal funding demand, maintenance expectations, replacement versus deferred maintenance, and whether the 2025 session may have underfunded municipal water supply needs. Haas said the commission uses the same high/medium/low prioritization process across all buckets, reviews maintenance plans as part of policy, and is seeing strong demand in the municipal bucket. He also explained that the department’s 14-year projection is based on the next seven legislative sessions and that the state faces a projected $1.3 billion shortfall over that period if all planned projects are funded under current assumptions. Deloitte then presented draft findings from the cost-share policy study and the governance/finance study. For cost share, Deloitte said the model shows a roughly $1.3 billion shortfall over 14 years and about $1.8 billion through 2031 under current policy, and offered seven options including tighter eligibility for replacement projects, state funding caps for the Mouse River and Red River Valley projects, a priority-based cost-share scale, timing shifts, use of existing lines of credit, and delayed reimbursement timing. For governance, Deloitte outlined draft options for Southwest, NAWS, and Red River ranging from maintaining current structures with stronger planning to transferring ownership or adding formal oversight, and recommended broader use of performance metrics, long-term financial planning, and clearer decision trees. No votes or formal actions were taken; the commission discussed the scenarios and the studies will return in revised form later in the spring.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so back in FY23, we knew we didn't need any funds for that particular year.
• We had outstanding needs, and we determined that we didn't need to make a request in FY25 for any funding
• But in order to actually build capacity efforts, we need supplemental funds.
• Typically, we need it full-funded before we go advertise a project for bidding.
• We have projected funding needs of about $63 million for the implementation of this project.

Summary: The committee met for an informational hearing focused largely on the state capital outlay process and House Bill 2. Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration/Facility Planning and Control described how the office prepares and administers the capital outlay bill, said the bill has grown substantially over five years, and argued that recent changes in culture, staffing, project management, cash-flow analysis, and use of third-party support have more than doubled project expenditures and improved delivery. Members asked about the use and cost of third-party project managers, delegation of smaller projects to agencies, hiring difficulties, and whether the changes represented better interpretation of existing law versus statutory changes. Husser said some statutes were amended, some internal customs were removed, and the office would provide a list of those changes. He also explained that the office is trying to move away from overly rigid practices and toward faster project completion while still following public-bid and oversight rules. A major portion of the discussion centered on the size and structure of the capital outlay bill, especially the gap between Priority 1 cash capacity and the much larger Priority 5 backlog. Husser said the current annual Priority 1 limit is tied to construction inflation and is about $574 million, with additional surplus funds also available, but that the bill contains far more Priority 5 funding than can realistically move in a five-year plan. He and members discussed dormant projects, scope creep, legacy projects that have sat in the bill for years, and the problem of false expectations for non-state entities. Proposed solutions included limiting Priority 5 to five times Priority 1, requiring annual re-endorsement by members, setting district or project caps for non-state projects, requiring time limits and reporting for grant-like non-state projects, placing matches in escrow, requiring design readiness before submission, and consolidating the many existing reporting requirements into one clearer report. Members also discussed bundling multiple projects under one agency project, which the House had begun piloting for LSU, UL Lafayette, Southern, and DOTD, and which Husser said could improve flexibility, reduce overappropriation, and better reflect actual spending. Baker then explained cash-flow management and the commitment process, saying FPC now analyzes projects annually to estimate what can actually be spent in the next fiscal year and uses commitments to allow projects to proceed when future-year funding is expected. He said overappropriations can result from poor cash-flow estimates, delays, dormant projects, or projects coming in under budget, and that the office is already reworking cash-flow assumptions and reappropriating savings where possible. Members also raised concerns about change orders and low bids; staff said project managers review change orders closely, require concurrence on non-state projects, and sometimes reduce scope to keep projects within budget. After FPC’s presentation, the committee heard the beginning of Louisiana Economic Development’s capital outlay discussion, where LED explained that its projects generally fall into three categories, including the Economic Development Awards Program and Site Readiness Program, both used to support targeted economic development and job creation.

Transcript Highlights:

• from proposals funded with the General Fund.
• by the General Fund, loaning to the General Fund.
• We have a lot of state funding for a lot of different things, and, of course, we have a lot of needs.
• That was a tool that came out of that one-time funding that is still existent today. ...should they need
• Fund and Prop. 68.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Resources, Environmental Protection, and Energy opened its first hearing with remarks from the chair and members emphasizing climate change, resiliency, clean energy, natural resources, and the need to make careful budget choices in a constrained fiscal environment. The Legislative Analyst’s Office presented an overview of the natural resources and environmental protection budget, warning that although current revenues are strong, the state faces significant out-year deficits and should apply a high bar to new ongoing spending, use special funds and fees carefully, and focus on critical health and safety needs. The LAO said the Governor’s Proposition 4 spending plan was generally reasonable and consistent with bond requirements, but urged legislative oversight and reporting, especially where bond funds interact with General Fund proposals. Secretary Wade Crowfoot then described the Natural Resources Agency’s recent accomplishments and priorities, including wildfire resilience, water reliability, coastal protection, outdoor access, biodiversity, tribal partnerships, and streamlining project delivery. He highlighted major investments in climate and resilience, the role of Proposition 4 in continuing those efforts, and the need to modernize water infrastructure, including Delta conveyance and other regional conveyance projects. Members asked about Delta conveyance, invasive species, permitting delays, and the impact of federal staffing cuts; Crowfoot said the administration is pushing projects forward, supports a beneficiary-pays approach for conveyance, and is filling gaps left by federal reductions where necessary. The committee then heard from the Department of Parks and Recreation. Director Armando Quintero reviewed the state park system, outdoor access programs, tribal agreements, wildfire and forest resilience work, and deferred maintenance funded by the climate bond. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposed ongoing General Fund transfer for the California State Parks Library Pass program, saying it did not meet the high bar for new spending, while several members strongly supported the program as a low-cost, high-value access tool. Members also pressed Parks on reservation system problems and no-show vacancies; staff said new rules and enforcement will take effect July 1 and that vacancies are being opened up sooner. The department also presented low-cost accommodation projects, which the LAO supported. Finally, the Department of Fish and Wildlife introduced its new director, Megan Hurdle, who outlined the department’s mission, staffing, service-based budgeting, and Proposition 4 proposals for salmon tagging, hatchery improvements, and public access lands. She emphasized the department’s role in biodiversity conservation, permitting streamlining, law enforcement, and human-wildlife conflict outreach, and said the agency is working to close a service gap identified in its budgeting analysis. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• But then we shifted solely to CIFCO cases to avoid losing the funding needed for social workers, and
• The funding needed for social workers.
• Unfortunately, the need is far greater than we have the funds to serve and to continue to grow.
• due to the cap funding. ...population that had identified housing needs due to the cap funding, so there
• It's just funding. Correct. What about the needs? It's just funding. Correct.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the impact of H.R. 1 on older Californians and related county administration issues. Chair Jackson and Chair Addis opened by emphasizing California’s rapidly aging population and the need to protect seniors’ access to food, health care, housing, and in-home support services. Testimony from the Department of Social Services, Department of Health Care Services, and Department of Aging described how H.R. 1 would expand work and reporting requirements in CalFresh and Medi-Cal, increase redeterminations, and create new eligibility barriers. Witnesses and advocates warned that these changes could lead to large coverage losses, especially for adults ages 55 to 64, people experiencing homelessness, caregivers, and some immigrant groups, while also increasing administrative burden on counties. The LAO noted that many provisions do not directly apply to Californians 65 and older, but highlighted indirect effects and some direct impacts, including a new home equity limit for certain long-term care recipients and narrower immigration eligibility rules. Committee members pressed the administration and counties on how exemptions would be identified and implemented, whether data systems could automatically protect eligible people, and how outreach would reach older adults, women, LGBTQ seniors, and people with limited digital access. DHCS and CDSS said they are working to use existing data, cross-program information sharing, and human-centered communications to maximize exemptions and reduce churn, including text outreach, print and radio campaigns, and navigator support. Members also raised concerns about the need for legal aid and county eligibility workers to help people navigate complex rules, and requested updated analyses on the number of people likely to lose both Medi-Cal and CalFresh and the broader human and system impacts. No votes were taken. The second major topic was the administration’s proposal to shift some future IHSS costs to counties by establishing a statewide baseline for average authorized hours per case. CDSS said the proposal is intended to improve consistency in assessments and not reduce services, while counties and labor groups strongly opposed it, arguing that rising hours reflect real increases in need, an aging and higher-acuity caseload, and state-mandated assessment tools rather than county error. County representatives said the proposal would strain already limited local revenues, worsen the effects of H.R. 1, and could force cuts to other safety-net services. Committee members questioned the proposal’s timing and impact, but the hearing ended without action, with the chairs asking for continued updates, additional analysis, and more information before May Revision.

Transcript Highlights:

• In order for us to sustain these efforts, they need to be fully funded.
• We will need additional funding to update kindergarten through second grade and grades six through 12
• </c><01:32:03.000><c> additional</c><01:32:03.400><c> funding</c> five uh we will need additional funding
• five uh we will need additional funding to<01:32:03.880><c> update</c><01:32:04.239><c> kindergarten
• The funding formula has not kept up with these inflationary costs and needs of our students.

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to make sure our students are learning to read at grade level, and this funding is dedicated
• We need to make sure that we fund those slots for those students, and so we do so by funding previously
• to fund Cal Fire.
• into the Rainy Day Fund, Our ability to put more funding into the Rainy Day Fund going forward.
• for direct funding.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee heard opening remarks on the 2025 Budget Act, which will be amended into AB 101 and SB 101 for floor consideration. Committee leaders described the budget as a difficult compromise shaped by a $12 billion deficit, federal funding uncertainty, wildfire impacts, and rising out-year costs, while emphasizing a balance between compassion and fiscal responsibility. Each budget subcommittee chair then summarized major actions in their areas, including health care, human services, education, climate and transportation, housing and state administration, public safety, and oversight/transparency. Key policy items included delaying or narrowing some of the Governor’s proposed cuts, especially in Medi-Cal and other safety-net programs; preserving funding for dental care, women’s health, family planning, hospice, long-term care, IHSS, and services for undocumented Californians; and maintaining or expanding child care, foster care, food banks, and CalWORKs-related supports. Education actions included additional Proposition 98 settle-up, reduced deferrals, support for TK-12, teacher recruitment, literacy, mental health, preschool slots, and restored funding for UC and CSU. Other major items included housing and homelessness investments, wildfire and disaster response funding, transit loans and greenhouse gas reduction fund support, Proposition 36 and VOCA-related public safety funding, and oversight measures on federal impacts and state efficiency. Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst staff said the package makes some of the same savings moves as the May Revision but relies more on internal borrowing and fewer reductions, leaving a smaller reserve than the administration’s plan but still maintaining roughly $11 billion in the rainy day fund. Members from both parties largely supported the package while raising concerns about long-term sustainability, Medi-Cal costs, reserve use, and the need for future revenue and program review. The committee adopted the subcommittee actions by roll call, 18-6, with the roll held open for absent members and additional comments continuing after the vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think HAP needs to be funded more in the future.
• You should need less funding, but that assumes that the HAP funding serves all homeless people in a community
• Cities recognize the important need to be held accountable for the funding that they spend addressing
• At the same time, we really want to ensure that funding gets out the door quickly to those who need it
• need that critical funding support.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee 4 met to hear an oversight discussion focused on homelessness, including the state of homelessness in California, state data systems, and the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HAP) program. In opening remarks, the chair emphasized accountability and the need to focus on families and people at the bottom rung, while the vice chair argued that homelessness and affordability problems stem from policy choices and the state should give counties more flexibility rather than top-down mandates. The committee also announced that the one scheduled vote would be postponed and public comment would be taken later. Dr. Ryan Finnegan of UC Berkeley’s Turner Center presented recent homelessness data, saying California’s homelessness remains high at about 187,000 people in the 2024 point-in-time count, with most still unsheltered, though the unsheltered share has declined somewhat. He explained differences between point-in-time counts and the state’s Homeless Data Integration System (HDIS), noted progress in shelter, permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, and interim housing capacity, and highlighted declines in youth and veteran homelessness. He also described persistent racial disparities, the large number of chronically homeless people, and risks from federal changes and possible reductions to programs such as Emergency Housing Vouchers and Continuum of Care funding. Members questioned the causes of recent trends, the role of Housing First, Proposition 47, Martin v. Boise, and how funding streams such as HAP and CalAIM are layered together. The California Interagency Council on Homelessness then outlined its data systems and AB 799 implementation. Staff explained that HDIS aggregates HMIS data from all 44 continuums of care and is used to measure outcomes, disparities, and program effectiveness statewide. They said HAP 4 was cost-effective under the State Auditor’s methodology, and that new AB 799 dashboards will provide more public-facing fiscal and outcome reporting by June 2027. Members asked whether the system can better distinguish which interventions work, how self-sufficiency will be measured, how fraud is detected, and whether the council can meet the auditor’s concerns on time. Cal ICH said it has met prior statutory deadlines, that program outcome data already exist, and that fiscal reporting will be built through a web-based tool and aligned with existing departmental reporting systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's what allows us to fund small public housing authorities in parts of the state. need to do.
• years so that like for a couple funding years so that you you you &gt;&gt; We<00:52:31.839><c> need<
• <00:59:26.079><c> needs</c><00:59:26.400><c> historically</c><00:59:26.880><c> and</c> funding needs
• historically and funding needs historically and currently. currently. currently. um<00:59:29.119><c>
• Um, now jumping back into just kind of historic funding needs for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund

Committee: House Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• But I think we need more funding in order to be able to do what— ...come out and help us.
• But I think we need more funding in order to be able to do what they would like to do and help us.
• Higher ed had a request for new funding, but I believe that is no longer needed by the department.
• This is the last funding needed to complete the project.
• I fully support this, and so we need to do full funding on that one. Thank you.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Summary: The meeting began as an informal education budget work group focused on reviewing a revised House Appropriations and Finance Committee scenario and flagging concerns rather than taking votes. Staff outlined the main changes from the LFC recommendation, including moving the statewide student information system appropriation, adding funding for the Black, Bilingual, Multicultural and Hispanic Education Act, universal school meals overrun costs, an evidence-based CTE pilot with a 50% local match, STEM network funding, wellness room pilots, Martinez-Yazzie action plan items, and changes to innovation zone and out-of-school time appropriations. A separate handout on the seven-year CTE pilot explained spending patterns, reversions, and possible federal maintenance-of-effort concerns if the state continues funding beyond a true pilot. Members then debated CTE extensively, with several arguing it improves attendance, graduation, and career readiness and should be sustained or expanded, especially in rural areas, while staff and others emphasized that much of the current funding has gone to general operational costs rather than intentional program design and that regional or matched funding models may be more effective. Members also discussed STEM and math initiatives, the need for more industry involvement, and whether the proposed match requirements would be too burdensome for smaller districts and BIE schools. The discussion also covered the Black, Hispanic, and Multilingual Education Acts and the Martinez-Yazzie lawsuit. Some members stressed that the acts should be explicitly named in the budget language and not merely implied, while staff said the scenario reaffirms prior commitments by building the costs into agency operating budgets. Members raised concerns about charter school hold-harmless funding, declining enrollment, and the need to align spending with the needs of at-risk students. The work group ended the education portion without any votes, with staff noting they would incorporate the feedback and return with clarifications, including on CTE funding, the educational acts, and the charter hold-harmless item. The meeting then shifted to the child well-being and early childhood work group, where staff presented a revised Early Childhood Education and Care Department scenario. The proposal moved money toward child care assistance and early pre-K, kept the FIT program funding level unchanged, and used a mix of trust fund, TANF, federal, and operating-budget adjustments to close part of the gap between the executive and LFC recommendations. Members questioned the policy direction, especially the shift toward infant and toddler care and pre-K expansion, the impact on school-age child care, and the implications for continuity of care and provider costs. Staff explained that the scenario prioritizes younger children and at-risk families, includes language for a wage and career ladder, and would require legislation to raise the early childhood trust fund distribution cap from 500 to 525. Members also discussed a separate proposed CYFD pilot bill (HB 65), which would be distinct from ECECD funding. No votes were taken, and staff said they would return with more cost information on full pre-K plus wraparound care. A final work group reviewed C2 and Department of Information Technology-related appropriations. Staff compared the LFC and executive recommendations for new funding and reauthorizations, noting that the LFC generally limited new projects while the executive funded more. Members discussed several IT modernization requests, including the Secretary of State’s voter registration and election management systems, the Spaceport Authority, Game and Fish, the State Engineer’s WATERS system, ECECD’s FitKids and EPIC replacement discovery, and Aging and Long-Term Services’ enterprise system modernization. The main themes were whether to fund planning versus full replacement, how to avoid piecemeal spending, and whether new systems should wait for incoming leadership. The Secretary of State’s office said its system is nearing end of life and the planning funds would help prepare a realistic replacement request, while other agencies described aging infrastructure, cybersecurity risks, and the need for modernization. The work group did not vote on any of the items and ended with staff noting additional follow-up on funding needs and reauthorization details.

Transcript Highlights:

• Anything below the line, we do not have funding this biennium to fund, and they would need to be deferred
• So it was interesting to me that we're talking about 14 years, but then we have funding needs beyond
• But with the funding gap, I think there is a need to make a decision on prioritization of the projects
• So then if you look at the total estimated funds needed, the completion is about $762 million.
• So then if you look at the total estimated funds needed, the completion is about $762 million.

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• this funding on a two-year basis will help us while evaluating the needs going forward.
• This is because continuously appropriated funds eliminate the need for the administration to come to
• fund in 1.2BH-S-A-F funding, which is Behavioral Health Services Act, and 37. fund in 1.2 BHSAF funding
• We really appreciate the $25 VOCA funding, but we know that we need $100 million.
• We really appreciate the $25 VOCA funding, but we know that we need $100 million.

Summary: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 heard the Governor’s May Revision proposals for the judicial branch, the Board of State and Community Corrections, the Department of Justice, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Legislative Analyst’s Office opened with a warning that the state budget remains structurally imbalanced and urged the Legislature to avoid new ongoing spending unless offset by reductions elsewhere. In the judicial branch discussion, the Judicial Council highlighted language access funding, appellate court security, a backfill for the state court facilities construction fund, and an extension of the lactation room mandate; Finance supported most items but suggested reporting language on interpreter costs and reducing the General Fund backfill. Members raised concerns about judicial vacancies, long-term salary freezes, remote hearings, and the lack of progress on court staffing in some counties. For the Board of State and Community Corrections, the administration proposed $10 million one-time each for the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People grant program and a human trafficking vertical prosecution grant program. The LAO said both should be weighed against other priorities and suggested the Legislature consider whether the Tribal Nations Grant Fund could support MMIP work, while Finance said it preferred General Fund support and wanted more review before any fund swap. Members strongly supported MMIP funding and asked whether ongoing support would be considered. On the human trafficking grant, Finance said BSC was a good fit because of its grant administration experience and prior vertical prosecution work, while legislators asked why the program was not placed with the Office of Emergency Services as originally contemplated in prior legislation. The Department of Justice presented antitrust litigation funding, Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse staffing, completion of organized retail criminal enterprise cases, and trailer bill language for a continuous appropriation from the Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund. The LAO supported the antitrust account use but questioned the Unfair Competition Law Fund’s ability to cover the full request without General Fund repayment, and recommended against a continuous appropriation for the restitution fund in favor of a more limited mechanism with legislative oversight. Finance said the fund would remain solvent and defended the continuous appropriation as necessary to pay victims promptly. In the CDCR portion, the largest discussion centered on the Boston Consulting Group efficiency review and sharply reduced savings estimates; LAO said the department had not fully explained the proposed position eliminations or future $100 million savings target, while Finance said the work reflected deeper analysis and ongoing efforts to find savings. Members repeatedly pressed CDCR and Finance on the gap between earlier promised savings and the revised figures. CDCR also outlined population projections showing continued declines in prison and parole populations, while LAO again urged the state to close an additional prison to save ongoing costs. The department then walked through several May Revision items, including workers’ compensation funding, a Corcoran honor housing dorm, incarcerated firefighter pay implementation, an incarcerated menopause program, mental health receiver staffing, mental health resource teams and crisis intervention teams, medical classification staffing changes, and AI note-taking for the electronic health record. LAO generally recommended limiting-term funding and more reporting for many of these proposals, while Finance defended them as necessary ongoing investments or court-ordered obligations. Members questioned the cost of workers’ compensation, the need for more prison closures, the lack of funding for women’s facility violence prevention, and the timing and transparency of the BCG savings process. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those funds are kind of a stopping point and get just distributed to the special funds where the funds
• They cannot sustain additional funding for further litigation should there be need for many, many lawsuits
• Those funds, but it is there should departments need it.
• for litigation and no need for us to spend those funds.
• In particular, the funding for direct legal assistance will help to support the immediate legal needs

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• We have funding issues for those caseloads. We have facility needs.
• We have funding issues for those caseloads. We have facility needs in Victorville, for instance.
• And for that, of course, we need funding.
• I really appreciate your time. ...resources to support them, and for that, of course, we need funding
• And we need to fund you more, especially with the Prop 36 expectation, and not less — especially not

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:

• The funds are locked up. In fact, I've had very few people come and say we need more money.
• Like, we need funding for safe school revenue and we need dedicated funding for student support personnel
• Like, we need funding for safe school revenue and we need dedicated funding for student support personnel
• </c> think it's a both and um like we need think it's a both and um like we need funding<01:03:30.559
• funding for student need dedicated funding for student support<01:03:34.279><c> Personnel</c><01:03:

Bills: HF56 , HF780

Committee: House Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• The Severance Tax Permanent Fund as well, it's very hard to tap into that corpus if needed.
• The Early Childhood Trust Fund is basically the last fund that you all could appropriate from if needed
• More returns than, say, something that needs to be more liquid, like the General Fund.
• They've got a contract, and they need the funding for it.
• I think you said the key word there is this fund needs to become sustainable in order.

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• funds for emergencies versus what we appropriated and what we need to keep in reserve.
• They go to the Early Childhood Trust Fund, the Medicaid Trust Fund, the Behavioral Health Trust Fund
• has been made available, but rather, to fully fund and fill that need to this committee, I would say
• to, this funding needs to happen.
• So, it is Key to get those needs funded. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Garrett.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and the information needed for monitoring, oversight, and allowing the funds to be released to states
• , and the information needed for monitoring, oversight, and allowing the funds to be released to states
• , and the information needed for monitoring, oversight, and allowing the funds to be released to states
• , and the information needed for monitoring, oversight, and allowing the funds to be released to states
• What maintains the smooth flow of the programs, the funds, and the information needed for monitoring,

Committee: Senate Education Finance