Transcript Highlights:

• Program, the Dairy Methane Reduction Program, and the Alternative Manure Management Program have delivered
• Habitat Program, our Organic Transition Program, and the Conservation Agriculture Planning Grant Program
• But, you know, the SWEEP Program, the farmer program, SALT program, those have all been beneficial.
• solid program.
• It's a great program.

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined how California agricultural programs have used cap-and-invest funding and what role agriculture should play in future climate investments. Committee chairs framed the issue as balancing climate goals, food production, rural economic vitality, and the fact that agriculture was not specifically funded in the recent cap-and-invest reauthorization. The first panel from CDFA and the Legislative Analyst’s Office described the state’s climate-smart agriculture portfolio, including Healthy Soils, SWEEP, the Dairy Methane Reduction Program, and Alternative Manure Management, and explained that GGRF revenues are now more constrained and may not fully support all tiered programs. LAO emphasized that agriculture is about 8% of California’s emissions, that most ag emissions are outside the cap, and that the Legislature should consider program effectiveness, the role of incentives, and GGRF priorities. CDFA testified that roughly $727 million has been invested in its flagship climate-smart ag programs, producing estimated reductions of 31 million metric tons of CO2e, 1.6 million acre-feet of water savings, and about 4,000 projects. The department said technical assistance is essential because farmers face risk when adopting new practices, and noted new Proposition 4 funding for Healthy Soils, SWEEP, and a regional farm equipment sharing program. University researchers then presented economic and methane-reduction analyses: UC Berkeley’s Dr. Hill described working landscapes as a major economic driver, while UC Davis’ Dr. Kibreab outlined dairy methane reduction pathways, including herd efficiency, digesters, alternative manure management, and emerging feed additives such as 3-NOP and seaweed, arguing that incentive-based programs have helped California move toward its methane goals. A later panel featured sharply different views on dairy digesters. Phoebe Seton argued that digesters worsen air and water quality, encourage manure liquefaction, and are an inefficient use of public funds, while CalCAN’s Brian Schobey and agricultural representatives said programs like AMP, SWEEP, Healthy Soils, FPIP, and the Farmer Program deliver measurable emissions reductions plus co-benefits such as water savings, lower energy costs, and improved air quality. Farm and industry witnesses stressed that stable, incentive-based funding helps family farms remain viable, supports co-investment, and should be treated as a partnership rather than a regulatory stick. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing ended with public comment and a continued call for future funding and policy discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are our climate-smart agriculture programs and the farm to school program.
• These programs, namely the Regional Farm Equipment Sharing Program and the Tribal Food Sovereignty Program
• programs.
• Is Market Match in this program, or is that in a different program, the farmers' market match?
• And this... oh, the CNIP program, the Certified Nutrition Incentives Program.

Transcript Highlights:

• TIMELINE AND PROGRAM TIMELINE AS IT HAS BEEN ROLLED OUT IN THE FLORIDA MEDICAID PROGRAM.
• PROGRAM.
• SEE HOW THE PACE PROGRAM COMPARES FOR LONG TERM CARE PROGRAMS.
• >> JUST PROGRAMS IN GENERAL.
• IF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE PROGRAM THE PROGRAM WILL NOT BE HELPFUL TO THEM.

Transcript Highlights:

• From the program.
• not a criminal justice program, a health care program.
• And this is Program, a health care program, and this is not just one person.
• This is a program regarding environmental assessments. This is a program.
• with respect to the program.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee held an oversight hearing on the state auditor’s October 2024 report on California’s Forensic Conditional Release Program (CONREP) for sexually violent predators. Members and witnesses discussed public safety, the long delays in finding community housing, the role of local housing committees, and the Department of State Hospitals’ oversight of Liberty Healthcare, which operates much of the program. Several legislators from rural and high-desert districts said their communities have been disproportionately affected by placements and questioned why many placements end up in remote areas. State Auditor Grant Parks said the audit found that CONREP participants were convicted of new offenses less often than sexually violent predators who were unconditionally released, but that 18 of 56 participants had been revoked and returned to state hospitals for noncompliance. He said it took an average of 17 months to place current participants in the community, with 20 additional people awaiting placement for an average of 20 months, and that the program incurred significant pre-placement costs. Parks also said local officials were often unclear about their role, DSH had not given clear guidance at the time of the audit, and California lacks a transitional housing option used in some other states. He reported that DSH had implemented four of the five audit recommendations, while declining the recommendation to explore state-owned transitional housing. DSH Director Stephanie Clendendon and Liberty representative Ken Carabello defended the program as a court-ordered, highly supervised treatment model intended to reduce reoffending and support reintegration. They said DSH is actively involved in placement review, that Liberty searches countywide under statutory restrictions, and that community feedback and court approval are part of the process. DSH said it has now implemented guidance for housing committee designees, formal program reviews, an outcome tracker, and an analysis of whether to separate some Liberty services into different contracts. DSH continued to oppose transitional housing, arguing it would not solve the core siting and statutory problems and would add cost. Several members remained critical, arguing the program is broken, costly, and unfairly concentrated in certain communities, and some called for major statutory changes or suspension of the program.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our Strategic Shared Initiatives Program is now, like the Fiscal Health Monitoring Program, an ongoing
• The program serves as California's principal state financial aid program, providing need-based grants
• Scholarship Program, and all the other important state financial aid programs.
• We provided you... ...program and all the other important state financial aid programs.
• Parent PLUS Loan Program.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard updates on higher education issues, beginning with California State University’s turnaround plans for seven campuses with enrollment declines. CSU said overall enrollment is growing systemwide, but some campuses, especially in Northern California, face structural declines tied to demographics and community college pipelines. The plans focus on reengaging stopped-out and adult learners, expanding partnerships and guaranteed admissions, improving retention and student support, and reducing costs through program suspensions, hiring freezes, shared services, and procurement consolidation. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the strategies were reasonable but urged regular legislative updates, and the Department of Finance had no additional comments. Committee members emphasized the need for implementation oversight, written updates, and attention to student outreach, financial aid, and privacy concerns around AI tools used in recruitment. The committee then reviewed the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education’s request for a $10 million General Fund appropriation to repay litigation-related borrowing. Department of Consumer Affairs and bureau staff said the bureau has a long-standing structural deficit, has already cut positions and shifted some costs, and that the General Fund backfill would reduce future fee increases on institutions. The LAO opposed the request, arguing the bureau can cover near-term costs with its existing loan and that litigation costs should remain the responsibility of the regulated entities through fees. Finance supported the one-time backfill as a unique situation that would lower fee increases and avoid passing litigation costs on to schools and students. Members asked about preventing a repeat of the problem, and bureau staff said they are pursuing fee increases through the sunset review and have strengthened internal policies and disability accommodation practices. The subcommittee also heard a broad update on Cal Grant funding and student aid. The California Student Aid Commission, UC, CSU, and the community colleges described Cal Grant as essential to affordability, but the LAO noted spending has grown faster than historical averages and said the state likely lacks capacity for major expansion in the near term. The segments highlighted the importance of state aid in covering tuition and living costs, and raised concerns about federal changes to student loans and Pell Grants, especially the elimination of Grad PLUS for some graduate students and limits on part-time borrowing. Committee members pressed for data on students who are eligible but not served by current Cal Grant rules, including adult learners and students affected by age and merit restrictions, and asked for analysis of phased-in implementation of the Cal Grant Equity Framework. Finance said full implementation would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and that affordability remains part of the state’s multi-year compact with the segments. Finally, the committee began discussion of the Middle Class Scholarship Program. CSAC and the UC and CSU said the program is a key part of affordability and debt reduction, especially after the 2022 reforms that expanded awards to total cost of attendance and improved administration. They warned that cutting funding by more than half would reduce award coverage from 35% to 17.5% of cost of attendance and could affect enrollment and persistence, particularly for middle-income students who do not qualify for other need-based aid. The segments also noted that recent administrative changes have reduced award revisions and campus workload, but that data exchange and award volatility remain challenges.

Transcript Highlights:

• Very good program.
• That's where our program leaders of established programs and one other important critical program staff
• Programs that do not have students enrolled may be new programs.
• in those programs.
• describe and provide, and programs that the university, That programs describe and provide, and programs

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Higher Education

Summary: The committee held its first meeting of the session and received an overview of the Higher Education Appropriations budget from staff director Tim Elwell. He explained the committee’s broad jurisdiction over universities, state colleges, district workforce programs, vocational rehabilitation, blind services, student financial aid, private colleges, and the Board of Governors, and reviewed key budget concepts such as local funds, funds per FTE, performance funding, and the distinction between the total appropriation and the recurring base budget. He noted that higher education is funded largely through state and local sources, with substantial flexibility compared with other state budgets, and that the base budget is heavily weighted toward lump-sum allocations to the public systems. The committee then heard a presentation from the University of South Florida’s Florida Center for Cybersecurity (Cyber Florida), led by retired Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie and USF representative Mark Walsh. They described Cyber Florida as a statewide cybersecurity platform created by the Legislature in 2014 to support education, research, workforce development, public policy, and community engagement. McKenzie emphasized the growing cyber threat environment, Florida’s leadership role, and several funded initiatives, including K-12 outreach, workforce training, a cyber range for county governments, critical infrastructure assessments, grant development, and public conferences and outreach. Members asked about public cyber awareness, the lack of a national cyber defense strategy, school district participation in Cyber Launch, and which counties are most at risk; McKenzie said smaller counties with limited cybersecurity staffing are generally more vulnerable and offered to provide follow-up information. Finally, the committee heard from the Florida Center for Students with Unique Abilities at the University of Central Florida, led by Dr. Drew Andrews, along with program and parent representatives from participating institutions. Andrews explained the center’s role in coordinating Florida’s postsecondary comprehensive transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities, supporting program development, distributing grants and scholarships, and monitoring outcomes. He reported that the state now has 33 approved programs at 35 institutions, including universities, state colleges, and technical colleges, and that scholarship and grant funding has grown significantly. He said student retention is about 88 percent, many graduates are employed, and median hourly earnings have increased over time. A representative from Southeastern University described how the center’s support helped build and sustain SEU Link, including a new third-year employment-focused option for students.

Transcript Highlights:

• the program.
• program.
• Program.
• The CCE program consists of two programs, in effect, the capital The CCE program consists of two programs
• program.

Transcript Highlights:

• Over the years, programs such as the Healthy Soils Program, the Soil Program, the State Water Efficiency
• Program, the Dairy Methane Reduction Program, and the Alternative Manure Management Program have delivered
• Habitat Program, our Organic Transition Program, and the Conservation Agriculture Planning Grant Program
• But, you know, the SWEEP program, the FARMER program, SALT program, those have all been beneficial.
• solid program.

Transcript Highlights:

• and the adult education program.
• This program expands upon the current Pell Grant program, but has some key differences.
• This program expands upon the current Pell Grant program, but has some key differences.
• auto repair programs, CNA programs.
• funding for the program.

Transcript Highlights:

• So in my opinion, Programs and cutting funds for those programs.
• These programs The Housing and Disability Advocacy Program and the Community Care Expansion Program.
• program.
• The CCE program consists of two programs, in effect, the capital The CCE program consists of two programs
• program.

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:

• program, right?
• program?
• Hazelwood Legacy Program.
• Program.
• Create their own programs.

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• So all of our programs are paid.
• That's why we like to say all of our programs are an earning-while-learning program.
• We do have programs in healthcare. We do have programs in cybersecurity. It can look like.
• We do have programs in healthcare. We do have programs in cybersecurity.
• We have a whole variety of other programs. We have banking programs.

Summary: The Workforce Support Subcommittee held a discussion focused on using registered apprenticeships to address workforce shortages, especially in disability services, human services, healthcare, and other high-need fields. Subcommittee members and presenters emphasized that apprenticeships can help employers build pipelines, improve retention, and create career ladders by combining paid on-the-job training with related technical instruction and credentialing. The group also noted that apprenticeships can be adapted for nontraditional occupations and for people with disabilities, including neurodiverse learners, with examples such as Bridgewater State’s Excel program and a developing medical interpreter apprenticeship. Amara Ramon of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards explained the state apprenticeship process, including employer and intermediary roles, program registration, apprentice tracking, quality assurance, and available grants. Melissa Chabelli described how her workforce board serves as an intermediary, working with employers to design programs, recruit apprentices, manage compliance, and support training. She highlighted employer benefits such as tax credits, retention, and the ability to update outdated training models. Lisa Morris described UMass Chan’s effort to build a medical interpreter apprenticeship, using a pre-apprenticeship, employer interviews, and a structured sequence of classroom hours and certification exams. Members and audience participants asked about recruitment, intermediary capacity, wage progression, and how programs can serve people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Presenters said apprentices can come from youth programs, career centers, incumbent workers, community colleges, ESL centers, and job fairs, and that accommodations and modified curricula can be built into programs. No votes were taken; the meeting concluded with encouragement for interested organizations to contact the Division of Apprenticeship Standards or local intermediaries and to review the shared materials and recording.

Transcript Highlights:

• programs.
• those programs.
• So many low-producing programs actually don't have dedicated faculty to those programs.
• So they're great programs.
• and said, we want a program.

Committee: Joint Higher Education Funding Review Committee

Summary: The Higher Ed Funding Committee met to review a proposed process for identifying and addressing low-producing academic programs, then moved into discussion of draft funding formulas for the university system. Lisa Johnson of the ND University System described how other states and systems define low-producing programs, emphasizing multi-year enrollment and completion thresholds, cost and workforce review, and the role of governing boards. She reported that North Dakota institutions already review programs in varying cycles, often use shared resources and stackable credentials to keep low-enrollment programs viable, and cited recent system actions over five years: 100 programs placed on inactivation, 75 terminated, and 384 new programs created. Committee members raised concerns about workforce-critical programs, duplication, exemptions, and whether the legislature or the State Board of Higher Education should drive the process. The chair said he wanted the board to bring a detailed proposal to the June meeting and suggested the legislature may use funding leverage, including a possible holdback, to encourage the review process. The committee then heard a Legislative Council presentation on a draft funding formula for UND and NDSU. The proposal used fall census FTE enrollment, with a placeholder rate of $7,000 per undergraduate FTE and $10,500 per graduate/professional FTE, plus incentives for completions in high-demand fields and research productivity. Alex from Legislative Council explained that the formula also included separate treatment for research funding, external grants, and capital building tiers, and that the MD program at UND would remain fixed funding outside the formula. Members questioned the use of the placeholder rates, the in-demand program list, the treatment of external grants, and how the proposal compared with current appropriations. The chair noted that the formula numbers were illustrative and not final budget amounts. A second draft formula for the other nine institutions was also reviewed. It used fall census FTE with no weighted economic factor, a higher undergraduate rate of $8,750 per FTE, and completion incentives for in-demand credentials and all other credentials. Members noted that the proposal would benefit some institutions, such as Bismarck State College, while reducing funding for others, such as Mayville State, and questioned whether the same structure should apply across institutions with very different missions and sizes. Committee discussion focused on fairness, hold-harmless concerns, and whether the nine institutions should be grouped differently. The committee did not take formal action, but the chair indicated the formulas would continue to be discussed later in the meeting and in future work.

Transcript Highlights:

• program.
• And so we are, we have a new NOFA program through our MHP program. So we are not at zero.
• We have a lot of programs.
• program, the CERNA Farm Worker Program, and the homeless housing rescue fund.
• low-income housing tax credit program and the multifamily housing program.

Transcript Highlights:

• Home Program.
• Home Program.
• Each of these programs provide home safe and the Bringing Families Home Program.
• They're not new programs per se.
• But not any programs. No programs are going to be additional.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services heard a series of budget items focused first on the California Department of Aging and then on the Department of Social Services. For Aging, the director reported the state is at the midpoint of the Master Plan for Aging, with about 300 initiatives launched and roughly three-quarters completed, nearly $1 billion invested, and expanded local planning, research, and stakeholder engagement. The committee also discussed HICAP modernization, which would add ongoing funding from the Special HICAP Fund to expand Medicare counseling capacity, and senior meal programs, including support for virtual congregate/to-go meals and the use of prior one-time nutrition investments. The chair raised concerns about federal H.R. 1 and its downstream effects on older adults, food assistance, and other safety-net programs, and the department said its direct budget was not affected but that other programs serving older adults could be under pressure. The committee then reviewed multiple CDSS proposals. These included implementing the federal Medicaid Access Rule by creating a statewide grievance process and critical incident reporting system for IHSS and other home- and community-based services; housing and homelessness programs such as CalWORKs Housing Support, Housing and Disability Advocacy, Home Safe, and Bringing Families Home, where the department described strong outcomes but warned that one-time funding is expiring and services are scaling back; and permanent position authority for the Housing and Homelessness Division. Members also heard about the facility management system modernization for Community Care Licensing, home care services branch solvency and regulation work, child care centers in multifamily housing, the Seizure Emergency Response Act, licensing during emergencies and disasters, the Family Preparedness Plan Act, and social services automation projects including CalSAWS, the enterprise data pipeline, and CalWORKs child support notices. The LAO and Department of Finance generally had no additional comments or were still reviewing several requests. A notable exchange occurred on the Community Care Licensing item, where Senator Grove pressed the department about the Autumn Oaks facility in Tulare County, citing dozens of complaints and severe conditions affecting seniors. The department said it had worked with the county and ombudsman on relocation, was reviewing what went wrong, and had authority to pursue administrative action even after a license surrender. The hearing ended with a stakeholder presentation from the California Association of Area Agencies on Aging supporting a $62.3 million Older Californians Act request, followed by public comment from advocates for housing, Meals on Wheels, HICAP, Home Safe, and H-DAP. The subcommittee adjourned without taking votes, and all items were held open.

Transcript Highlights:

• And just go program by program.
• And just go program by program.
• What are we looking for program by program?
• What are we looking for program by program?
• And I think you have to start program by program.

Committee: All ALC-HOSPITAL, MEDICAID, & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The committee first heard from Arkansas Workforce Connections and the Department of Commerce about a package of nine federal waivers submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor under WIOA and Perkins. The officials said the waivers would give Arkansas more flexibility over governance, funding, affiliate centers, and program rules, and that the state expects a response by August 29. They said the package is modeled more closely on Louisiana’s approved waivers than on states with more denials, and outlined a possible transition plan if approved, including a transition committee, policy changes, board training, staffing, and follow-up legislation. Members asked about whether the waivers would affect services for people with disabilities; the officials said not directly, because the waivers focus on WIOA Titles I and III rather than vocational rehabilitation under Title IV. The committee then focused on “benefit cliffs” and work disincentives in safety-net programs. Researchers from the Georgia Center for Opportunity and the Alliance for Opportunity explained how earnings loss rates from taxes and benefit phaseouts can exceed 50%, 75%, or even 100%, making additional work or promotions financially unattractive. They presented Arkansas-specific modeling showing multiple cliffs and stacking effects across SNAP, Medicaid/CHIP, LIHEAP, WIC, reduced-price lunches, child care, and housing assistance, and argued that child care and health coverage create some of the largest disincentives. They suggested policy options including SNAP demonstration waivers, child care subsidy redesign, TANF outcome-based funding, Medicaid premium assistance and health savings accounts, and a possible small-scale pilot to test a more integrated safety net. Heather Webb of Arkansas Family Alliance and Molly Palmer of the Heart of Arkansas United Way added testimony from families, employers, and nonprofits. Webb described a working mother who lost Medicaid and a housing subsidy as her income rose, saying the cliff left her stressed despite earning more. Palmer said Arkansas’s ALICE population often works multiple jobs and still cannot meet basic living costs, and that employers report recruitment and retention problems when workers face benefit cliffs. Members asked for more data on savings and program impacts, and the witnesses said they could provide Arkansas-specific modeling and scenario analysis. The meeting ended with discussion of public-private partnerships, employer-sponsored insurance premium assistance, marriage penalties, and the need to coordinate or consolidate fragmented programs before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• We know how essential these preschool programs are to the very functioning of our These preschool programs
• universal preschool programs.
• of these programs.
• program.
• Which matches the CDSS program.

Summary: The hearing focused on California’s early learning and care system, including the Master Plan for Early Learning and Care, universal preschool access, and the state’s transitional kindergarten (TK) expansion. Administration officials said California has made progress toward universal TK for all four-year-olds and expanded access for low-income three-year-olds, children with disabilities, and some two-year-olds in state preschool. The Department of Social Services highlighted ongoing work on quality improvement and a single rate structure, while the Department of Education emphasized continued investments in UPK infrastructure, inclusion, and teacher development. Testimony from advocacy groups stressed that access remains uneven, especially for infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds, and that federal threats to Head Start could significantly disrupt services in California. Witnesses and committee members discussed several policy recommendations for preschool and state preschool programs, including consolidating part-day and full-day contracts, simplifying eligibility priorities, eliminating some family and licensing fees, allowing self-attestation of income, making the two-year-old preschool option permanent, and basing funding on enrollment and the true cost of care. A parent from Contra Costa described losing child care after moving counties for safety reasons, illustrating delays and fragmentation in the system. Providers in public comment argued that reimbursement rates are too low and that better pay and retirement and health benefits are needed to stabilize the workforce. The second panel addressed the governor’s January budget proposal to fully implement universal TK and reduce TK class ratios from 12:1 to 10:1. The Department of Finance said the budget would add about $2.4 billion to serve all eligible four-year-olds and $1.5 billion for the lower ratio. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said its enrollment and cost estimates were lower than the administration’s and projected the ratio change would cost less than proposed. The Department of Education and the Learning Policy Institute reported that TK enrollment and staffing have grown, most districts now offer TK, and many are on track to meet new teacher requirements, but facilities, staffing, and expanded learning remain challenges. Committee members raised concerns about access at all school sites, the need for more full-day options, and the risk that TK expansion could crowd out CSPP and Head Start space.

Transcript Highlights:

• program.
• That the program.
• Hate program.
• Hate program.
• low-income housing tax credit program and the multifamily housing program.

Summary: The subcommittee heard an extensive presentation on the administration’s housing reorganization proposal, which would centralize multifamily affordable housing finance under the new Housing Development and Finance Committee (HDFC) and align it with the Governor’s trailer bill language. Administration officials said the plan is intended to create a one-stop application and award process, reduce duplicative timelines and costs, and pair state subsidy with private activity bonds and federal tax credits more efficiently. They also described proposed changes to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, including shifting a larger share of funding toward housing-related awards while preserving a portion for sustainable communities investments. The Legislative Analyst’s Office generally supported the streamlining concept but recommended changes to the proposed bond set-aside timing and urged flexibility for integrated applications and future reporting on demand. Senators, especially Senator Cabaldon, raised concerns that the proposal could weaken the original climate-and-transportation purpose of the sustainable communities program and that the reorganization would be undercut by the lack of new housing production funding in the budget. The item was held open without a vote. The committee then received a report from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee on federal and state housing tax credits. Staff explained that the federal H.R. 1 change lowering the bond-financing threshold from 50% to 25% greatly expanded the number of projects able to use the 4% federal tax credit, allowing California to fund many more projects and units. They also described the state low-income housing tax credit as an important gap-filling tool for projects that still need additional subsidy, and noted existing set-asides for rural, homeless, at-risk, and extremely low-income projects. Members discussed rehabilitation as well as new construction, and the item was informational only. Finally, the Civil Rights Department reported on the effects of federal civil rights policy changes and on three programs facing expiration: California vs. Hate, the Community Conflict Resolution Unit, and Investigations and Conciliation Enhancement. Director Kevin Kish said federal cuts and policy shifts have reduced support for fair housing and other civil rights functions, while CRD’s caseload has grown from about 8,700 open matters a year ago to more than 12,000, with a six-month wait for interviews despite overtime triage efforts. Senators expressed strong support for continuing the programs and concern about the broader federal rollback of civil rights enforcement. The department said it is using overtime, intake triage, and outreach partnerships to manage the workload and direct Californians to appropriate state, local, and nonprofit resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• Programs.
• auto repair programs, CNA programs.
• auto repair programs, CNA programs.
• Also, though this program is more targeted than the program.
• in that program.

Summary: The committee heard an overview of the May Revision’s Proposition 98 changes for K-12 and community colleges. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, full payment of the prior settle-up, and larger deposits into the school rainy-day fund. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF updates were reasonable, but urged caution about the settle-up approach and recommended using more of the available funding to protect ongoing programs and build budget resilience. Members focused heavily on the size of the proposed $3.9 billion settle-up, the $10.3 billion reserve deposit, declining K-12 enrollment, and how much of the new funding should be ongoing versus one-time. The committee then reviewed the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described the May Revision’s higher SCFF COLA, additional funding for enrollment growth, a student support block grant, apprenticeship adjustments, and continued funding for deferred maintenance, Calbright, Common Cloud, and credit for prior learning. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended prioritizing the statutory COLA increase, noted that more than half of districts are already above current-year growth targets, and said the new adult learner demonstration project should be rejected because districts already have tools to support similar services. Members also discussed a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall, which Finance said was discovered too late for the May Revision and would need to be addressed later. Finally, the committee took up the proposed implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the California Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career to build eligibility and data systems, along with trailer bill changes to set up state approval processes. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, that California lacks the needed infrastructure, and that the state will need emergency regulations, data linkages, and ongoing funding beyond the one-time proposal. The LAO agreed that some initial funding is needed but warned that the amounts and ongoing costs remain uncertain and that the Legislature should carefully draft the trailer bill language. Members asked about timing, other states’ actions, and how the state would ensure the program is ready for students and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• And Brian Underhill who handles Florida education finance program and other K through 12 programs.
• And that's where our program leaders of established programs and one other important critical program
• There's quite a bit of reporting that programs are asked to do for all approved programs.
• We encourage our programs that students have work experience during the program.
• It's typically the two-year program is the is the basic program.