|
Prepared by Precision Advocacy
As the legislature moves deeper into the 2026 budget cycle, budget hearings are in full swing, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is weighing in on the governor’s budget proposals, and policy committees are beginning to receive and evaluate the first wave of bills introduced this year. The legislature has begun scrutinizing the administration’s fiscal priorities and shaping the policy direction of the 2026-27 state budget.
Recent hearings and analyses reflect a broad range of issues that will influence legislative deliberations in the coming months, including climate and natural resource investments, housing production, safety-net program administration, water permitting, and long-term infrastructure financing. At the same time, the LAO has begun releasing detailed reviews of the governor’s proposals, offering recommendations that often call for greater prioritization of limited General Fund resources and careful evaluation of new spending commitments given the state’s projected fiscal constraints.
The following report summarizes several key hearings and policy analyses that are helping to frame the legislature’s early budget discussions. These include the first hearing of the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation, as well as recent LAO analyses on affordable housing financing reforms, county administration of safety-net programs under federal policy changes, child welfare funding, SSI/SSP benefits, water quality permitting capacity, and ongoing oversight of the state’s high-speed rail project. Together, these discussions highlight the fiscal pressures facing the state and the policy choices lawmakers will need to make as the budget process continues to unfold.
Assembly Budget Subcommittee Hearing: Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation
The Assembly Budget Subcommittee #4 on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation held its first hearing of the year to discuss the details of the governor's proposed budget. The hearing was chaired by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) and attended by Assemblymembers Damon Connolly (D-San Rafael), Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale), and Chris Rogers (D-Santa Rosa). The Subcommittee heard from the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO), Department of Finance staff, and other relevant department staff for each of the items, holding each time open without action pending the May Revision.
Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot Commentary. Secretary Crowfoot was on hand to highlight California’s progress on climate action including $40 billion invested in climate change mitigation, decarbonizing the grid, and wildfire resilience projects. Crowfoot called the current environmental regulatory system “well intentioned” but unable to move quickly enough to address the current climate realities. He went on to talk about the importance of nature-based solutions. He also highlighted some key future projects including the modernization of the State Water Project.
Federal funding cuts. Secretary Crowfoot talked about the loss of capabilities of the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Forest Service. In certain key areas, the state has backfilled funding and positions in areas that are critical to Californians such as the river forecasting center to maintain flood prediction capabilities. He emphasized the importance of maintaining state and federal partnerships to support critical programs.
Proposition 4 funding and transparency. Secretary Crowfoot announced the use of a new online tool intended to track funding sources and ensure that they are meeting the 40% threshold for disadvantaged communities. He noted that the department has agreed on the definition of disadvantaged communities to help applicants assess whether they meet the definition. He acknowledged that state funding programs have been overly complicated in the past and have required organizations to provide funding upfront, and later receive reimbursement. This has benefitted well-resourced communities and organizations that have the cashflow to manage this. He introduced a new process by which communities can submit a concept or pre-application to the State Conservation Board and the Wildlife Conservation Board to test and receive feedback from the Department on whether an idea has merit enough to apply for funding.
CalFire and wildfire prevention efforts. Secretary Crowfoot talked about the importance of investments in wildfire prevention efforts, saying that for every dollar spent on proactive wildfire actions, $7 dollars are saved in response costs. The governor’s budget requests an augmentation to implement a year-round, seven-day per week schedule for the California Conservation Corp’s Fire Program. In addition to strengthening CalFire’s response, Secretary Crowfoot spoke in favor of prioritizing home and community level hardening against wildfire.
Legislative Analysts Office Framework. In her testimony, the LAO’s Rachel Ehlers emphasized the need to shift the spending mindset to shrinking and reprioritizing spending on projects. She reviewed a suggested criteria that the Committee could use to evaluate budget items and decide which items to fund and which to pull back on. The recommended criteria calls on the Committee to:
- Apply a Very High Bar When Approving New Proposals
- Prioritize proposals that meet critical health and safety concerns or other time-sensitive objectives.
- Reject proposals that fail to meet this high bar.
- Consider modifying proposals to reduce pressure on the General Fund.
- Take Steps to Address the Budget Condition
- Evaluate whether recent augmentations and agreements still represent the state’s highest priorities.
- Begin the process of identifying potential additional budget solutions.
- Avoid adopting policies that will create additional out-year budget pressures.
- Ensure Remaining Expenditures Focus on the Most Important Activities
- Consider revisiting the mix of remaining funding to ensure it supports the state’s highest priorities.
Issue 3: Prop. 4 – Safe Drinking Water, Drought, Flood, and Water Resilience. Included in the committee report under this item, the Santa Ana Conservancy addresses the resource and recreational goals of the Santa Ana River region including open space, trails, wildlife habitat, agricultural land protection, water quality protection, educational use, and public access. Several projects are currently in the planning stage and will be moving into implementation in the next couple of years, which will utilize the $10.2 million authorized from this suballocation in 2025-26. In Orange County, the OC River Walk will make improvements to the riverbank and Santa Ana River Trail amenities.
Issue 4: Prop. 4 – Coastal Resilience. Under this item, Assemblymember Rogers asked staff if the proposed funding would improve the speed of the rollout of Prop. 4 funds, citing the increased costs associated with delaying coastal restoration projects. Prop. 4 funding in this area has been slower to roll-out due to the emergency rulemaking process.
Issue 5: Prop. 4 – Outdoor Access. Assemblymember Bennett encouraged staff to utilize technology to help monitor unstaffed lands in the most cost effective manner.
Issue 6: River Forecast and Snow Survey Resources. Staff noted that this item meets the high bar of priority funding set by the LAO. Assemblymember Bennett went on record to emphasize the importance of the program for public safety and called out the federal cuts that were made. The program is critical to alert the public about potential floods and is also used to forecast and plan for drought and necessary water restrictions.
Issue 7: Wildfire Readiness Seven-Day per Week Schedule – California Conservation Corps (CCC) Hand Crews. Staff spoke about the importance of public safety and future cost savings of implementing this item. Assemblymember Bennett spoke in favor of community hardening and encouraged the CCC to move towards providing those services.
Issue 8: California State Parks Library Pass Program. The budget proposes $6.8 million General Fund on an ongoing basis for the Library Pass Program, which distributes 33,000 park passes to more than 1,100 library branches statewide. While the program does facilitate Californians’ access to parks, it does not meet a pressing health and safety need.
While the LAO opined that the program is a “nice to have” and not essential, Assemblymembers Bennett and Rogers, debated the necessity of spending funds on this program given that it may be a benefit for residents who are not low-income. Assemblymember Rogers advocated for the program saying that it draws in people who wouldn’t otherwise pay to visit the parks, while Chair Bennett argued that the passes shouldn’t cover higher income residents.
Hearing materials
March 4 - Sub. 4 Agenda CNRA Pt. 1
LAO Handout: Framework for Approaching the Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, and Agriculture Budget
Legislative Analyst’s Office: Streamlining California’s Affordable Housing Funding System
The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) recently released its analysis of the governor's proposal to streamline California’s affordable housing funding system. The proposal is a key component of the governor’s 2026-27 budget and introduces structural reforms aimed at simplifying how affordable housing projects secure state financing.
This initiative is a direct response to longstanding complaints from local governments and developers regarding the current, complex, and fragmented nature of California's affordable housing financing system. The changes are specifically designed to benefit jurisdictions like Orange County, which experience some of the state's highest housing costs and where projects often require diverse funding streams. By reducing delays, the streamlined system intends to accelerate projects from the planning stage through to construction.
At the center of the proposal is the creation of a more centralized housing financing structure through a new entity called the Housing Development and Finance Committee (HDFC). The goal is to create a “one-stop shop” where affordable housing developers can apply for multiple state funding programs through a more coordinated process. Historically, developers have had to assemble a complicated “capital stack” that includes federal tax credits, state housing loans, and local funding. Each source often requires separate applications, timelines, and scoring systems, which can slow projects down and increase development costs.
For affordable housing projects that frequently rely on layered financing from state, federal, and local sources, a streamlined process could reduce administrative barriers and accelerate project timelines. Local governments in the county often partner with developers to secure multiple funding streams. A centralized system could allow projects that already have local support to move more quickly through the state funding process.
The proposal also restructures one of the state’s most significant housing programs, the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program. Currently, AHSC requires developers to combine affordable housing construction with transportation or climate-related infrastructure improvements in a single application. The governor proposes splitting this program into two components, one focused on housing, which would be administered by HDFC, and another focused on transportation infrastructure, which would remain with the Strategic Growth Council.
This change could provide additional flexibility for communities in Orange County. In areas where the primary need is housing production rather than transportation upgrades, developers could pursue housing funding independently. However, the LAO notes that separating the programs could also create new challenges for projects that rely on both housing and transportation investments, such as transit-oriented developments near major rail or bus corridors, because developers may have to apply to two separate agencies again.
Another major component of the proposal involves federal housing tax credits, which are the backbone of most affordable housing projects. The governor proposes setting aside a large share of federal tax credits and private activity bonds for projects that receive funding through the new HDFC system. The intent is to ensure that projects approved for state housing subsidies automatically receive the tax credits they need, rather than having to compete for them later in the process.
For developers, this could significantly reduce uncertainty in the financing process. Currently, projects sometimes receive one form of state support but fail to secure tax credits, leaving developments stalled despite having partial funding. Aligning these programs could help ensure that projects receiving state support can complete their financing and begin construction more quickly.
Overall, the LAO concludes that the governor’s approach is promising and could meaningfully simplify California’s affordable housing funding system. However, it also recommends several refinements, including maintaining the option for integrated housing-and-transportation applications and creating reporting requirements so the legislature can measure whether the reforms actually shorten development timelines and reduce costs.
For Orange County, the proposed reforms could help speed the development of new affordable housing by reducing bureaucratic hurdles and better coordinating the state’s financing tools. At the same time, the success of the reforms will depend on how effectively the state integrates funding programs and ensures that local housing projects can still access transportation and climate-related infrastructure funding when needed.
LAO: County Administration and H.R. 1 Implementation
Recent federal and state policy changes are expected to significantly affect how counties administer major safety-net programs such as Medi-Cal and CalFresh. Under California’s system, these programs are overseen by state departments but administered locally by counties, which are responsible for determining eligibility, processing renewals, and ensuring that individuals who receive benefits meet program requirements. For counties like Orange County, these administrative responsibilities are central to the delivery of health coverage and food assistance for low-income residents.
The LAO notes that H.R. 1 introduces major changes to both Medi-Cal and CalFresh that will reshape how counties carry out these responsibilities. The law expands work requirements for certain adults, requires more frequent eligibility checks in Medi-Cal, and imposes stricter eligibility rules for some noncitizen groups. These changes are expected to reduce enrollment in both programs while simultaneously increasing administrative workload for counties as they verify work participation, track exemptions, and process additional eligibility reviews.
For Orange County, these changes will likely increase the complexity of administering safety-net programs. County eligibility workers will need to determine which individuals are subject to new work requirements and monitor compliance, while also conducting additional eligibility redeterminations for certain Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Because many individuals participate in more than one program at the same time, such as receiving both Medi-Cal and CalFresh, counties must coordinate eligibility determinations across multiple systems and maintain accurate documentation.
Another major concern identified in the analysis involves payment error rates in both programs. The federal government measures whether benefits are provided to eligible individuals and in the correct amounts. Under H.R. 1, states with high error rates could face significant financial penalties. In the case of CalFresh, California could be required to assume a share of benefit costs if the state’s error rate remains above certain thresholds. This creates strong incentives for counties, including Orange County, to improve eligibility verification processes and reduce administrative errors.
At the same time, the analysis warns that stricter administrative requirements may increase the risk that eligible individuals lose benefits due to paperwork burdens or missed reporting requirements. Research on similar policies in other programs shows that individuals sometimes lose coverage not because they are ineligible, but because they fail to complete required documentation or reporting steps. To mitigate this risk, the report highlights the importance of automation, improved data sharing, and sufficient staffing so counties can help residents navigate new program rules.
The governor’s proposed budget reflects some adjustments related to these federal changes, particularly for CalFresh. The budget accounts for reduced federal funding for program administration and increases the share of administrative costs borne by the state and counties. Beginning in late 2026, the federal share of CalFresh administrative funding will drop significantly, increasing the financial responsibility for both the state and counties. For counties statewide, this change is expected to add roughly $190 million annually in new costs, creating additional fiscal pressure on local governments.
Counties must maintain program integrity, reduce error rates, and support residents through more complex eligibility requirements, all while managing higher administrative costs and potential reductions in enrollment. The LAO emphasizes that county implementation strategies and staffing decisions will play a key role in determining whether the state can successfully manage these changes while avoiding financial penalties and unnecessary loss of benefits for eligible residents.
Overall, the report underscores that counties remain on the front lines of administering California’s largest safety-net programs. For Orange County, the coming changes will likely require expanded coordination between county agencies, improved technology systems, and ongoing engagement with residents to ensure that eligible individuals continue to receive health coverage and food assistance while meeting new federal requirements.
LAO: Child Welfare
The LAO analyzed the governor’s 2026-27 budget proposal for child welfare programs which reflects a relatively stable funding approach while the state continues implementing several major reforms adopted in recent years. California’s child welfare system, administered locally by counties under the oversight of the Department of Social Services (DSS), provides services aimed at protecting children from abuse and neglect while supporting families so children can remain safely at home whenever possible. For counties such as Orange County, which operate large child welfare agencies and extensive foster care systems, the proposed budget largely maintains existing programs rather than introducing new initiatives.
The proposal includes a modest decline in state General Fund support for child welfare programs compared with the prior year. This reduction is primarily driven by the expiration of certain one-time augmentations provided in earlier budgets rather than by new policy cuts or program changes. Overall program funding, including federal and county sources, is projected to increase slightly, reflecting expected growth in ongoing program expenditures such as foster care payments and child welfare services.
For Orange County, the most significant aspect of the proposal is the continued implementation of recent reforms to the child welfare system rather than the creation of new programs. The state has made several major investments in recent years aimed at improving services for children and families. These include initiatives such as the CWS-CARES case management system modernization, behavioral health services through the Behavioral Health Community-Based Organized Networks of Equitable Care and Treatment (BH-CONNECT), and expanded support for family-based placements and prevention services. The legislature will continue overseeing how these programs are implemented and whether they are producing the intended outcomes for youth and families.
Another major policy initiative underway is the development of a new tiered rate structure for foster care placements as part of the state’s broader Continuum of Care Reform. The new structure is intended to replace the traditional placement-based payment model with a system that determines funding based on the level of care and services required by each child. This approach uses the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) assessment to determine the appropriate level of support and corresponding foster care rate. The goal is to ensure that funding follows the needs of the youth rather than the type of placement.
However, the implementation of the tiered rate structure is not yet funded in the governor’s budget and is expected to require significant new resources in future years. Current estimates suggest that fully implementing the new rate system could cost the state more than $300 million annually beginning in 2027-28 and grow further in subsequent years. Because the state faces projected structural budget deficits, the administration’s baseline budget assumes that the legislature may delay implementation unless additional funding is approved.
For counties, this uncertainty creates challenges for long-term planning. County child welfare agencies, foster family agencies, and service providers are currently preparing for the new rate structure, including training staff to conduct CANS assessments and preparing systems to implement the new model. If implementation is delayed, counties may continue operating under the current interim payment system for foster care placements while the state determines how to address the long-term costs.
The LAO also emphasizes the importance of legislative oversight as these reforms continue to unfold. Key questions for policymakers include whether recent program investments are improving outcomes for youth and families, whether funding for newer initiatives will remain sustainable once temporary funds expire, and whether additional statutory or budget adjustments will be needed to support long-term reform of the foster care system.
For Orange County, the proposed budget largely maintains the existing structure of child welfare programs while the state evaluates the effectiveness of recent reforms. The County will continue to implement new initiatives designed to strengthen family-based care, improve behavioral health supports for foster youth, and modernize child welfare case management systems. At the same time, the ultimate timeline and funding for major structural changes, such as the tiered rate structure, will depend on future legislative decisions and the state’s broader fiscal outlook.
LAO: Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) Program
The governor’s 2026-27 budget includes continued support for California’s Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) program, which provides monthly cash assistance to low-income seniors and people with disabilities. The program combines a federally funded SSI benefit with a state-funded SSP grant that supplements the federal payment. For many residents in Orange County, particularly seniors and individuals with disabilities living on fixed incomes, SSI/SSP represents a critical source of income used to meet basic needs such as housing, food, and health care.
Under the governor’s proposal, the state would spend about $3.6 billion from the General Fund on the SSP portion of the program in 2026-27, an increase of approximately $94 million from the revised 2025-26 estimate. When combined with federal SSI funding, total program spending is projected to reach about $11.5 billion statewide. The modest increase in state spending largely reflects technical adjustments rather than policy changes, and the proposal assumes that the state portion of SSI/SSP grants will remain unchanged in 2026-27.
The budget also assumes that the SSI/SSP caseload will continue to decline slightly in the coming years. The number of beneficiaries has been gradually decreasing since the mid-2010s and is projected to fall by about 0.9% in both 2025-26 and 2026-27. State analysts attribute this trend partly to individuals losing eligibility as their income or assets exceed program thresholds.
Although the state is not proposing changes to the SSP portion of the grant, recipients will still see some benefit increases because of the annual federal cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) applied to SSI payments. The governor’s budget assumes a federal SSI COLA of about 3.1% in January 2027. This adjustment would increase maximum SSI payments to about $1,024 per month for individuals and $1,537 for couples, while the SSP portion would remain at roughly $239 per month for individuals and about $608 for couples.
Despite these increases, the analysis highlights ongoing concerns about whether SSI/SSP grant levels keep pace with living costs in high-cost regions such as Orange County. Even after recent grant increases and federal COLAs, the maximum grant for individuals remains below the federal poverty level, meaning many recipients continue to live in deep poverty. The report also notes that housing costs have risen much faster than SSI/SSP benefits. Between 2013-14 and 2025-26, fair market rents increased far more rapidly than grant levels, making it increasingly difficult for recipients to afford housing.
The disparity between grant levels and housing costs is particularly significant in high-cost coastal counties. Fair market rents in coastal regions substantially exceed the value of SSI/SSP grants. In many of these areas, the rent for a modest apartment can equal or exceed the entire monthly SSI/SSP grant, leaving recipients with little income for other necessities.
For Orange County, where housing costs are among the highest in California, this gap between benefits and living expenses poses a continuing challenge for low-income seniors and people with disabilities who rely on SSI/SSP. While the governor’s budget maintains existing benefit levels and incorporates federal COLA increases, the analysis suggests that broader policy discussions about the adequacy of SSI/SSP benefits, particularly in high-cost regions, are likely to continue as lawmakers evaluate how well the program supports vulnerable populations.
LAO: Permitting Support at the State Water Resources Control Board
Under California law, the State Water Resources Control Board and its regional boards implement both federal and state water quality regulations, including permitting requirements under the federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. These permits regulate activities such as dredging, filling wetlands, and discharging stormwater or pollutants into state waters. Projects that disturb waterways or discharge runoff, such as roadway expansions, flood control projects, housing development, or wastewater infrastructure, must obtain approvals through these regulatory processes before construction can proceed.
Recent federal legal changes have altered how some of these waters are regulated. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency significantly narrowed the federal definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), limiting federal jurisdiction primarily to relatively permanent water bodies and wetlands directly connected to them. As a result, certain wetlands, seasonal streams, and other water features that were previously regulated under federal law are now regulated primarily by the state. Because California’s definition of “waters of the state” is broader than the federal definition, the state water boards must now take on additional permitting and enforcement responsibilities for these waters.
This shift in regulatory authority has increased the workload for the state’s water boards. According to the report, the share of state-only dredge and fill permit applications increased significantly after the Sackett decision, from about 5% of applications before the ruling to roughly 20% afterward. State-only permits also require more staff time to process; the report notes that these permits can require up to 140 more staff hours than comparable federal certification permits. In addition, the state now must perform certain oversight and enforcement activities that were previously handled by federal agencies, including verifying wetland boundaries and responding to complaints regarding discharges into waters that are no longer under federal jurisdiction.
To address these new responsibilities, the governor’s 2026-27 budget proposes $2.6 million annually from the Waste Discharge Permit Fund and 12 permanent staff positions for the State Water Resources Control Board. These staff would help manage the increased workload associated with reviewing permit applications, conducting inspections, and enforcing water quality standards. The LAO concludes that the proposal appears justified based on the available workload data and recommends approving the funding request.
The report also identifies several statutory changes that could improve the efficiency of the permitting process without changing water quality standards. These potential reforms include aligning state enforcement authority more closely with federal enforcement tools, expanding the applicability of statewide water quality control plans to waters that are no longer federally regulated, allowing regional water board executive officers to approve certain permits without requiring full board hearings, and adjusting public notice and environmental review requirements for some state-only permits. Some proposals also suggest partially exempting certain state-only discharge permits from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which could reduce permitting timelines by a year or more in some cases.
For Orange County, these changes could affect the pace and complexity of environmental permitting for local infrastructure and development projects. Cities, flood control districts, and transportation agencies in the county frequently require water quality permits for stormwater infrastructure, coastal wetland restoration, transportation improvements, and housing development near waterways. Ensuring that the state water boards have sufficient staffing and efficient permitting processes may help reduce delays for projects while maintaining water quality protections. At the same time, any statutory changes to streamline permitting processes would require careful legislative consideration to balance regulatory efficiency with environmental oversight and public participation.
LAO: Oversight of the California High-Speed Rail
California’s high-speed rail project continues to face significant policy, funding, and oversight questions as the legislature evaluates its future direction. The LAO provided background information and an analysis of the governor’s budget proposal on high-speed rail last week. The California High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) was established in 1996 to plan and construct a statewide rail system connecting major population centers. In 2008, voters approved Proposition 1A, providing $9 billion in initial funding and establishing requirements for the system’s development. More recently, the legislature directed the authority to focus on completing an initial electrified segment between Merced and Bakersfield in the Central Valley, which has become the current construction priority.
State law requires the High-Speed Rail Authority to provide regular updates to the legislature through business plans and project update reports that outline project costs, schedules, and expected funding sources. In 2025, HSRA released both a Project Update Report and a supplemental report providing additional information on project progress and potential alternatives for expanding the system. Another business plan is expected in 2026, which will give lawmakers further insight into the project’s financial outlook and long-term strategy.
The supplemental report examined several alternatives for expanding the system beyond the current Central Valley segment, including routes connecting the Bay Area to Bakersfield or Palmdale. While some of these alternatives could generate higher ridership and operating revenue, they would also significantly increase project costs. Current estimates place the cost of completing the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment at about $37 billion. Expanding the system toward the Bay Area or Southern California could increase total costs to between roughly $54 billion and $91 billion depending on the route and scope selected.
Funding remains one of the project’s most significant challenges. The project is expected to receive roughly $43 billion in funding, largely from federal grants and revenues from California’s cap-and-invest program, which now allocates $1 billion annually to the project through 2045. However, the loss of approximately $4 billion in federal funds reduces the estimated total funding available to about $39 billion. When borrowing costs are included, analysts estimate the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment alone could face a funding gap of roughly $2 billion.
To address these financial challenges, HSRA has discussed potential financing strategies including borrowing against future cap-and-invest revenues and pursuing a public-private partnership (P3) to help finance and deliver portions of the project. Legislative analysts caution that both approaches carry risks. Cap-and-invest revenues can fluctuate depending on market conditions and policy changes, which could make borrowing more difficult. Public-private partnerships can also be costly because private partners require compensation for taking on financial risk and because negotiating such agreements can be complex.
For Orange County, the long-term implications of the high-speed rail project relate primarily to the broader Southern California transportation network. Although the current focus remains on completing the Central Valley segment, the statewide vision for high-speed rail includes eventual connections linking Northern California with the Los Angeles basin and surrounding metropolitan areas. These connections could ultimately interact with existing regional rail and transit systems that serve Orange County residents, potentially improving interregional mobility between Southern California and other parts of the state.
In the near term, the legislature faces several key decisions about the project’s future. Lawmakers must determine whether to provide additional funding to close remaining gaps in the Central Valley segment, whether to support HSRA’s proposed borrowing strategies or public-private partnerships, and whether to adopt statutory changes intended to streamline project delivery. These decisions will shape the long-term trajectory of California’s high-speed rail system and determine how and when the project might expand to serve regions across the state, including Southern California and Orange County.
Notably, last week, local government organizations representing counties, cities, and special districts formally opposed the HSRA’s proposal to create Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts around proposed rail stations. The proposal would allow the state to capture future growth in property tax, and potentially sales tax, within a half mile of station areas to help finance high-speed rail construction.
The proposal raises concerns because it could divert future property tax growth that local governments depend on to fund essential services such as public safety, infrastructure maintenance, transportation, parks, and housing programs. Over the potential 45-year life of a TIF district, this diversion of revenues could significantly constrain the fiscal capacity of counties and cities to address growing service and infrastructure demands.
Local government groups also argue the proposal could conflict with constitutional protections for local tax revenues and undermine local land-use authority. They caution that overlapping financing districts could complicate existing economic development and infrastructure financing efforts. While supportive of a statewide high-speed rail system, local agencies urge the state to pursue alternative funding approaches that do not divert locally controlled tax revenues.
Upcoming Hearings
Agendas are typically posted on the committee websites in the Assembly and Senate a few days prior to the hearings. To view hearings after they take place, you may access them in the Assembly or Senate media archives where they are generally available within a few hours of committee adjournment.
Monday, March 16, 2026, 2:30 p.m.
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Public Safety
State Capitol, Room 447
0250 Judicial Branch
0690 Office of Emergency Services
Tuesday, March 17, 2026, 1:30 p.m.
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 On State Administration
State Capitol, Room 447
1700 Civil Rights Department
0509 Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development
Tuesday, March 17, 2026, 1:30 p.m.
Assembly Emergency Management
State Capitol, Room 127
Oversight Hearing: California's Next Generation 9-1-1 System: Oversight of Delays, Costs, and the Path Forward
Tuesday, March 17, 2026, 1:30 p.m.
Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection
State Capitol, Room 437
Informational Hearing: Online Safety Controls: What They Are, Why They Fail, and What We Can Do About It
Wednesday, March 18, 2026, 9:00 a.m.
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 7 on Accountability and Oversight
State Capitol, Room 126
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Budget Oversight
Wednesday, March 18, 2026, 9:30 a.m.
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation
State Capitol, Room 447
0555 Secretary for Environmental Protection Agency
3930 Department of Pesticide Regulation
3940 State Water Resources Control Board
3960 Department of Toxic Substances Control
3970 Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Wednesday, March 18, 2026, 9:30 a.m.
Assembly Insurance
State Capitol, Room 437
Oversight Hearing: Outcomes Review of AB 3012 (Wood and Daly), Statutes of 2020 - Residential property insurance: FAIR Plan Residential Clearinghouse Program
Thursday, March 19, 2026, 9:30 a.m. or upon adjournment of session
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection, and Energy
1021 O Street, Room 2200
0555 Secretary for Environmental Protection Agency
3900 California Air Resources Board
3930 Department of Pesticide Regulation
3940 State Water Resources Control Board
3960 Department of Toxic Substances Control
3970 Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Thursday, March 19, 2026, 9:30 a.m. or upon adjournment of session
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 3 on Health and Human Services
1021 O Street, Room 1200
H.R. 1 (Public Law No. 119-21) Impacts and State Efforts to Preserve Access to Health Care, Food and Nutrition for All Californians
4260 Department of Health Care Services
Medi-Cal Eligibility
5180 Department of Social Services
CalFresh and Food Programs
CalWORKs
Thursday, March 19, 2026, 9:30 a.m.
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration and General Government
State Capitol, Room 113
0860 State Board of Equalization
0680 Governor's Office of Service and Community Engagement
7600 Department of Tax and Fee Administration
7730 Franchise Tax Board
Thursday, March 19, 2026, 9:30 a.m.
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation
State Capitol, Room 112
0521 California State Transportation Agency
2660 Department of Transportation
2665 High-Speed Rail Authority
2667 High-Speed Rail Authority Office of the Inspector General
2670 Board of Pilot Commissioners for the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun
2720 Department of California Highway Patrol
2740 Department of Motor Vehicles
7120 California Workforce Development Board
Grant Opportunities
Below is a list of the latest grant opportunities released by the state. All opportunities for local jurisdictions may be found here.
Application deadline: 4/1/26 12:00
Title: 2025-26 Preservation & Accessibility of California's LGBTQ+ History
State Agency / Department: CA State Library
Match Funding? No
Estimated Total Funding: $750,000
Funding Method: Advances
Application deadline: 4/14/26 23:59
Title: Local Government Waste Tire Cleanup Grant Program (TCU21)
State Agency / Department: Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Match Funding? No
Estimated Total Funding: $1,500,000
Funding Method: Advances and Reimbursement(s)
Application deadline: 5/4/26 16:00
Title: AHSC Round 10 NOFA
State Agency / Department: Department of Housing and Community Development
Match Funding? No
Estimated Total Funding: $650,000,000
Funding Method: Reimbursement(s)
Application deadline: 4/17/26 17:00
Title: Division of Boating and Waterways Local Assistance QZ Mussel Infestation Prevention Grant
State Agency / Department: Department of Parks and Recreation
Match Funding? No
Estimated Total Funding: $2,000,000
Funding Method: Reimbursement(s)
Governor’s Press Releases
Below is a list of the governor’s press releases beginning March 5.
March 10: Governor Newsom announces appointments 3.10.2026
- Leticia Palamidessi, of West Sacramento, has been appointed Assistant Secretary for Communications at California Natural Resources Agency
- Genevieve Hoffman, of Berkeley, has been appointed User Experience Designer at the Office of Data and Innovation
- David Silva, of Buellton, has been appointed to the California Air Resources Board
- Juan Novello, of Sacramento, has been appointed to the California Volunteers Commission
- Herminia “Minnie” Santillan, of Sacramento, has been appointed to the 52nd District Agricultural Association, Sacramento County Fair Board
- Benito Delgado-Olson, of Oakland, has been reappointed to the Low-Income Oversight Board at the California Public Utilities Commission
March 10: Governor Newsom proclaims AmeriCorps Week
March 10: Governor Gavin Newsom & Attorney General Bonta: 37 Missing Children Found in Riverside County Operation
March 10: California’s organized retail crime efforts result in 33,000+ stolen goods recovered in two months
March 10: Governor Newsom blasts Trump for raising gasoline prices on Americans with no plan and no accountability
March 9: Governor Newsom proclaims Civic Learning Week
March 6: Following Kristi Noem’s firing, Governor Newsom demands DHS redirect funding from Noem’s failed ad campaign to LA recovery
March 6: Governor Newsom announces major transformation of six vacant buildings in Los Angeles County into mental health and housing communities
March 5: El Gobernador, el Senado y la Asamblea se comprometen a proteger las elecciones de la intromisión federal de Trump
March 5: DINERO GRATIS PARA LA UNIVERSIDAD: Nuevo esfuerzo conecta a estudiantes de colegios comunitarios en California con becas disponibles de CalKIDS
March 5: Governor Newsom announces over $2 million in funding for small businesses innovating in the Golden State
March 5: Governor, Senate, Assembly commit to protecting elections from Trump’s federal overreach
March 5: FREE MONEY FOR COLLEGE: New effort connects California community college students with available CalKIDS scholarships
March 5: California sues Trump over his unlawful use of tariffs — again
March 5: Trump pardons wipe nearly $2 billion in victim repayment and taxpayer recovery for Medicare and tax fraud, and more
March 4: Governor Newsom and Acting Governor Kounalakis honor fallen Chief Warrant Officer Three Robert M. Marzan
|
