|
Prepared by Precision Advocacy
The legislature has now moved fully into the post-May Revision phase of the budget process, with budget subcommittees using last week’s hearings to evaluate the administration’s updated proposals, hear stakeholder concerns, and identify unresolved issues heading into final negotiations. Across the hearings summarized in this report, a consistent theme emerged: while the May Revision attempts to address the state’s structural budget deficit, many of the proposed solutions would have significant implications for counties, particularly in health and human services, behavioral health, homelessness, transportation, climate investments, and local administrative capacity. For Orange County, some of the most pressing concerns center on the cumulative effect of H.R. 1 implementation, Medi-Cal and CalFresh eligibility workload, indigent care exposure, and the broader risk that state-level savings could reappear as local service and fiscal pressures.
The budget process will move quickly from here. The Senate Budget Subcommittees are scheduled to vote on budget items on May 28, and the full Assembly Budget Committee is expected to take up its budget package next week. After that, legislative leaders will continue negotiations between the two houses and with the administration as they work toward a final budget agreement before the June 15 constitutional deadline. As those negotiations proceed, counties will be focused on whether the final budget provides sufficient resources, flexibility, and policy direction to help local governments manage growing implementation responsibilities without shifting unsustainable costs downstream.
Senate Budget Subcommittee on Health & Human Services - Post May Revision Hearings
The Senate Budget Subcommittee Health and Human Services hearings reinforced that counties’ biggest issue with the May Revision is not a single program cut, but the combined pressure of H.R. 1 implementation, Medi-Cal eligibility churn, CalFresh administrative workload, indigent care exposure, behavioral health funding shifts, and reductions or delays in services that counties administer locally. Across both hearings, the administration emphasized that the May Revision is intended to address the state’s structural deficit, while the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) cautioned that even with strong revenues, the budget still relies on reserves and borrowing and leaves the state with an ongoing operating deficit. Chair Caroline Menjivar (D-San Fernando Valley/Burbank) repeatedly framed the tension as a choice between balancing the budget and protecting services for the state’s most vulnerable residents.
Hearing testimony reflected that counties view the May Revision as inadequate. Comments included that the proposal underfunds county eligibility workers while adding potential penalties and urged the legislature to reject the administration’s approach to “surge staffing” or contracting out eligibility work in favor of direct county workforce funding. The County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) requested increasing the Medi-Cal eligibility workforce funding to $197 million in the budget year and $368 million in 2027-28, when the workload is expected to peak. Administrative underfunding increases the risk that eligible residents lose coverage because of process barriers rather than actual ineligibility.
The indigent care discussion is especially significant for Orange County. The May Revision does not include dedicated funding for indigent care, public hospitals, or county behavioral health impacts related to H.R. 1. County association representatives urged the legislature to consider an alternative limited-scope, state-funded Medi-Cal bridge for individuals who lose full-scope coverage because of work requirements, arguing that it would keep people connected to Medi-Cal, allow federal claiming for inpatient care where available, and give the state time to develop a longer-term strategy.
CalFresh and food assistance were another major county issue. The May Revision projects CalFresh caseload declines of 6.3% and CFAP declines of 16.2% in 2026-27, resulting in a $158 million General Fund reduction to county CalFresh administration because the funding formula is caseload driven. The LAO notes that CalFresh enrollment had already begun declining before major H.R. 1 changes were implemented, potentially reflecting a “chilling effect,” and the May Revision continues to assume future H.R. 1-related impacts. At the same time, the Senate Budget Plan proposes $100 million above the $8 million CalFood baseline for food bank purchasing to meet increased demand as Californians lose CalFresh and proposes using a portion of Medi-Cal employer Fair Share Contribution revenues to support county health and human services administration related to H.R. 1.
For Orange County, this creates a two-sided problem: fewer people may remain enrolled in CalFresh, but the County’s workload may not decline in proportion to caseload because new federal requirements, appeals, recertifications, notices, and client confusion can make each case more complex. The background materials also include H.R. 1-related provisional language, allowing DOF to approve additional State Hearings Division expenditures if fair hearing requests increase due to policy changes. That is relevant because counties could experience more disputes and appeals as residents navigate new eligibility rules, shortened renewal periods, and benefit disruptions.
Behavioral health was another Orange County-relevant theme. The Administration proposes reducing the Behavioral Health Services Act Innovation Partnership Fund by $10 million and eliminating $6.7 million in advocacy contracts that have supported engagement by underserved communities since the Mental Health Services Act. The background materials describe those advocacy contracts as supporting LGBTQIA+ communities, diverse racial and ethnic communities, veterans, K-12 youth, clients and consumers, family members, parents, transition-age youth, and immigrant and refugee communities. The Commission and advocates argued that eliminating these funds would weaken the infrastructure that helps communities participate in county behavioral health planning at the exact moment counties are implementing Proposition 1/BHSA.
Orange County was specifically cited during the May 20 hearing as an example of the local value of these advocacy contracts. A witness described Cambodian genocide survivors in Orange County—individuals with high rates of serious mental illness—being supported to turn lived experience into advocacy, including dozens of Cambodian elders appearing before the Board of Supervisors and helping secure county funding for a behavioral health services program that met their needs. That example is useful for Orange County because it shows how statewide advocacy infrastructure can translate into local participation, culturally competent behavioral health planning, and county-level accountability.
The Department of State Hospitals discussion also had an Orange County-specific item. The May Revision restores or supports $59 million in 2023-24 funding for seven Incompetent to Stand Trial infrastructure projects that had progressed since the Governor’s January budget. Those projects represent 625 beds across Fresno, Humboldt, Orange, Riverside, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Stanislaus counties. The Administration had previously proposed reverting the funding because of stalled progress, but the May Revision recognizes that the projects had advanced. For Orange County, this is a positive development because IST capacity remains tied to county jail pressures, court backlogs, behavioral health placement needs, and state hospital waitlists.
Adult programs raised additional concerns. The May Revision proposes reducing Adult Protective Services (APS) expansion funding by $70 million General Fund ongoing, including returning APS eligibility from age 60 to age 65. The background materials estimate that approximately 60,000 adults ages 60 to 64, about 24% of the APS caseload, would be affected, and that adults ages 60 to 64 would no longer be eligible for Home Safe housing support unless already enrolled. The LAO cautions that because APS expansion funds are allocated to counties for APS program costs generally, reductions would likely affect county APS programs more broadly. For Orange County, this could narrow the front door to protective services and housing stabilization for vulnerable older adults at the same time health and housing pressures are increasing.
The May Revision also proposes Medi-Cal-related reductions affecting seniors, immigrants, and optional benefits, including reinstating a stricter Medi-Cal asset test, shifting certain populations with unsatisfactory immigration status to fee-for-service, increasing premiums, eliminating acupuncture, and creating utilization controls for applied behavioral analysis and transportation. Advocates warned that these proposals could reduce access to coordinated care, increase emergency department use, and shift costs to counties and safety-net systems. The major policy concern is that state savings may reappear locally as uncompensated care, behavioral health demand, emergency room pressure, and county-funded support for residents who lose coverage or services.
The May Revision provides some recognition of H.R. 1 workload, but the hearing record strongly suggests that counties believe the proposal falls far short of what will be needed to prevent coverage losses, administrative bottlenecks, and cost shifts to local systems.
Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health - Post May Revision Hearing
The Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Health hearing on May 19 reflected a broader theme that has increasingly emerged throughout this year’s budget process. California is attempting to reconcile significant healthcare and behavioral health demands with a budget environment that remains structurally constrained, while counties continue finding themselves at the center of implementation and service delivery pressures. Although the May Revision includes some additional investments and adjustments, much of the discussion suggested that lawmakers continue wrestling with the question of how much responsibility can realistically shift to local systems before counties begin absorbing impacts that exceed their capacity. The hearing agenda itself covered a broad range of health and behavioral health proposals, including the Department of State Hospitals, Behavioral Health Services Act implementation, Covered California, the Department of Health Care Access and Information, and Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) proposals.
Chair Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) opened the hearing by acknowledging that the May Revision made progress in several areas of concern that members had repeatedly raised over prior hearings, including funding for county administration associated with H.R. 1 implementation, additional investments supporting healthcare affordability, and delaying certain reductions affecting humanitarian immigrant populations.
However, she also emphasized that substantial concerns remain unresolved. She pointed to issues including increased Medi-Cal premiums for some populations, renewed restrictions affecting seniors, unresolved Medi-Cal dental concerns, physician workforce shortages, and uncertainty surrounding local behavioral health and crisis response programs. Of particular significance for counties, Chair Addis specifically highlighted county eligibility and administrative responsibilities associated with H.R. 1 implementation, noting that while the May Revision reflects movement in the right direction, counties had sought significantly more support than is currently proposed.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) framed much of the conversation by cautioning lawmakers that despite stronger revenues, California’s underlying fiscal condition remains problematic. The LAO noted that the state continues relying heavily on reserves, prior-year balances, and borrowing to balance future budgets, despite experiencing historically strong revenue growth. Its message was clear – lawmakers face difficult choices because additional commitments made today could create larger challenges in future years if revenues slow. While this conversation was largely fiscal, it carried important implications for counties because many of the proposals discussed throughout the hearing involve services counties ultimately administer or support. The tension throughout the hearing was therefore not simply about health policy, but about determining how to maintain existing commitments without creating future fiscal obligations the state cannot sustain.
Many of the county-related implications centered around Medi-Cal and H.R. 1 implementation. Background materials accompanying the hearing noted that the legislature will need to balance near-term implementation needs with broader budget pressures and recommended additional reporting and flexibility should county workload assumptions prove inaccurate. Questions also remain surrounding county performance expectations and potential penalties associated with eligibility processing. Counties are paying close attention because these changes arrive at a time when administrative responsibilities are increasing substantially. County eligibility workers increasingly serve as the front line for helping residents navigate more complicated work requirements, verification standards, and renewal processes. Several comments throughout the hearing suggested that insufficient resources could create avoidable losses of coverage, which in turn could drive greater demand for county-supported healthcare systems and indigent care services.
Behavioral health funding generated some of the most significant discussions of the day, particularly surrounding implementation of Proposition 1 and use of Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) resources. The administration described its proposal as an opportunity to use newly available BHSA funding to support workforce and prevention activities while replacing certain General Fund expenditures. Administration officials emphasized that counties would continue receiving their required share of BHSA funding and suggested there would be no direct reduction in county allocations. However, members expressed concern about whether proposed expenditures align with voter intent and whether the proposals effectively repurpose funding in ways that could diminish resources available for prevention and community-based priorities over time.
The proposal would shift approximately $211.9 million in General Fund expenditures to Behavioral Health Services Act resources in 2026-27 and $229.1 million in 2027-28. Proposed shifts include funding for community-based mobile crisis services, behavioral health platforms, workforce initiatives, and other state-level activities. The LAO raised significant questions regarding whether these proposals are consistent with Proposition 1’s non-supplantation language and whether the programs themselves represent eligible uses under the measure. For counties, these questions matter because many local governments have already expressed concerns that Proposition 1 implementation could gradually narrow the flexibility they historically relied upon to support prevention and local behavioral health strategies.
While distressed hospitals were not the dominant topic of testimony during the hearing itself, the accompanying background materials provide important context for counties. The May Revision proposes increasing distressed hospital grant funding to up to $50 million. However, the LAO noted several concerns regarding the proposal, including whether the funding adequately targets hospitals most critical to community access, whether the measures of distress are too narrow, and whether one-time assistance addresses long-term financial instability. These issues are particularly significant for counties because hospital financial challenges frequently shift pressure elsewhere. Reduced hospital capacity often translates into increased demand on county-operated health systems, emergency departments, behavioral health infrastructure, public health services, and indigent care obligations.
Overall, the hearing suggested broad recognition that counties increasingly sit at the intersection of state healthcare policy decisions and real-world service delivery. Members repeatedly acknowledged county concerns regarding workload, implementation responsibilities, and service impacts, but discussions also reflected the difficult reality that the state itself faces significant fiscal constraints. The central question was not whether counties face growing pressures, there appeared to be broad agreement on that point, but rather whether the state’s current proposals meaningfully address those pressures before costs and responsibilities ultimately migrate downstream to local systems.
Background
Senate Budget Subcommittee on State Administration - Post May Revision Hearing
The Senate Budget Subcommittee on State Administration and General Government hearing on May 20 focused on the May Revision proposals for housing, homelessness, civil rights, land use, and economic development. For Orange County, the most significant items are the proposed structure for the next round of the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) Program, the state’s effort to reduce local development impact fees on affordable housing projects, the housing finance reorganization, and several smaller but relevant proposals affecting CEQA filing costs, infill housing infrastructure, encampment resolution, and affordable housing tax credit administration.
The central homelessness item was the administration’s proposed trailer bill language for HHAP Round 7. The 2025 Budget Act committed $500 million for a seventh round of HHAP in 2026-27 but made the appropriation contingent on additional legislation governing how the round would be administered. The administration proposes to distribute Round 7 through an amendment to the Round 6 Notice of Funding Availability, meaning formula recipients would not need to submit an entirely new application if they can demonstrate that they meet new prerequisites. Those prerequisites include fiscal readiness, compliant housing elements, encampment policies consistent with state guidance, local matching funds, good reporting status, and, for cities receiving HHAP funds and the counties in which they are located, a pro-housing designation requirement.
This proposal is important because it shifts HHAP from a flexible homelessness funding program toward a more conditional, compliance-based funding structure. The county and Orange County cities would need to watch closely how the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) defines compliant housing element, how quickly jurisdictions must obtain and maintain pro-housing designation, what level of local match is ultimately required, and how HCD evaluates sufficient progress on encampments and system performance metrics. The background materials make clear that several of these terms remain undefined or discretionary, which could create uncertainty for local governments trying to plan homelessness services and housing interventions. The LAO also notes that the pro-housing designation requirement would be a notable change because it currently functions as a competitive advantage in some programs, not a broad state funding condition.
The Senate’s 2026 budget plan proposes fully funding HHAP Round 7 at $1 billion, adding $500 million above the current commitment, and commits to a fully funded eighth round. That distinction matters – the governor’s proposal creates the framework for Round 7, while the Senate framework would provide a more stable funding level consistent with recent HHAP rounds and give local jurisdictions greater predictability for homelessness and encampment response planning.
The proposed trailer bill language on local development impact fees would reduce the use of state affordable housing dollars to pay for locally imposed development costs by treating local fee waivers or reductions as a local contribution in scoring affordable housing applications, and by prohibiting a local government from imposing development fees when that local government is itself seeking state funding for the affordable housing project. The background materials frame the proposal as an attempt to ensure state affordable housing funds pay for housing development rather than indirectly subsidizing local infrastructure or service costs.
This proposal could create real tradeoffs. On one hand, fee waivers could help affordable housing projects score better and move forward. On the other, the proposal may pressure local governments to absorb infrastructure, road, utility, park, or public service impacts that development fees are intended to offset. The LAO and committee staff identified several unresolved questions, including which housing programs would be covered, whether local governments can afford to waive fees, how special district fees would be treated, whether Mello-Roos fees can actually be waived by the relevant local agency, and whether the proposal could disadvantage jurisdictions with high housing need but limited local fiscal capacity.
The hearing also covered the administration’s continued reorganization of the state housing and homelessness bureaucracy. The practical significance for the county is that state housing finance and homelessness functions are being consolidated and realigned just as local governments are being asked to meet more conditions for HHAP and affordable housing funding.
Among the vote-only items, the most relevant for Orange County housing and homelessness purposes are the reappropriation of $7 million in unused Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG) funding and the reversion of $603,000 in unused Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF) administrative dollars. The IIG reappropriation would preserve housing infrastructure dollars for another infill project rather than reverting them to the General Fund, consistent with the Senate’s stated priority of supporting affordable housing programs. The ERF item would return unused administrative funding from Round 2 to the General Fund.
Overall, the hearing reflects a broader May Revision theme, that the state is not simply proposing housing and homelessness funding, but attaching more structure, conditions, accountability mechanisms, and local fiscal expectations to those dollars. For Orange County, the key issues to monitor are whether HHAP Round 7 is funded at $500 million or $1 billion, how quickly and rigidly HCD applies pro-housing, housing element, local match, and encampment requirements, whether impact fee restrictions shift infrastructure costs onto cities and counties, and whether housing finance changes translate into more actual affordable housing production in high-cost regions like Orange County.
Assembly Budget Subcommittee on State Administration - Post May Revision Hearing
The May 20 Assembly Budget Subcommittee on State Administration largely focused on state operations and technical budget implementation issues, but beneath the discussion of payroll systems, tax proposals, and administrative funding requests was a broader conversation that has important implications for counties and local governments. Throughout the hearing, Chair Sharon Quirk-Silva repeatedly returned to a familiar tension in California policymaking, that the state continues asking local governments to move faster, build more, report more, and deliver measurable outcomes, while many local jurisdictions continue operating with uneven staffing levels and constrained resources.
Quirk-Silva's comments suggested that her central concern was not disagreement with the policy goals themselves, but rather whether local governments have the capacity to achieve them. While several hearing items focused on state-level administration, including Fi$Cal implementation, tax conformity proposals, and business tax changes, the discussion shifted substantially once housing and homelessness issues came before the committee. Her tone became noticeably more direct and reflected growing concern about the gap between expectations and available resources. She openly acknowledged frustration with the funding environment, stating that she was "extremely grouchy" about what had been presented concerning housing and homelessness resources. Her comments reflected concern that the state continues emphasizing accountability and performance measures while simultaneously reducing flexibility and failing to provide sufficient resources to local entities responsible for implementation.
The discussion surrounding local impact fees illustrated this tension clearly. State proposals intended to reduce housing costs by limiting certain local fees drew substantial concerns from local government representatives, including counties. County representatives, cities, and regional organizations argued that while lowering development costs is an important objective, reducing local authority over fees could have unintended consequences, particularly for jurisdictions already operating with limited capacity. CSAC and UCC warned that these changes could make affordable housing more difficult in under-resourced communities.
Quirk-Silva did not fully align herself with either side of the debate, instead emphasizing the complexity of the issue. She acknowledged that California has spent years trying to reduce the cost of building affordable housing, but she also repeatedly returned to concerns about local capacity. In particular, she noted that smaller jurisdictions frequently struggle to compete for available funding because they lack staff and administrative resources. She observed that many communities simply do not have the personnel needed to navigate increasingly competitive and complicated grant structures.
The HHAP program generated some of the most substantive discussion. Quirk-Silva outlined what she viewed as the committee's priorities moving forward, including continued HHAP funding, the $80 million youth set-aside in a housing bond, support for low-income housing tax credits, multifamily housing investments, and CalHOME funding. HHAP funding supports many of the local homelessness systems counties administer or help coordinate, including shelter programs, coordinated entry systems, supportive housing initiatives, and partnerships with community providers.
Yet even as support for HHAP remained strong, concern emerged around new accountability provisions attached to funding. Multiple speakers raised concerns that proposed local match requirements and expenditure benchmarks could unintentionally delay the release of HHAP funds and create funding gaps for local systems already operating with limited flexibility. Local government advocates cautioned that requiring large portions of existing HHAP allocations to be fully obligated before future funds are distributed could interrupt local programming timelines. They also expressed concern that pro-housing designations and local match requirements might disadvantage smaller communities that often rely on counties as intermediaries for accessing resources.
Quirk-Silva repeatedly returned to what she characterized as a difficult balancing act – accelerating implementation while maintaining accountability. She acknowledged the legislature's desire for measurable outcomes and stronger oversight but suggested that layering additional requirements onto local governments may ultimately slow progress if jurisdictions cannot realistically meet those standards.
For counties, the hearing ultimately reflected a broader question emerging throughout this budget cycle – whether California's implementation expectations are outpacing local administrative capacity. The hearing highlighted concerns that counties are likely to continue raising as budget negotiations move forward. Those include maintaining flexible homelessness funding, avoiding delays in HHAP distributions, preserving local authority and fiscal tools, and ensuring that accountability frameworks do not inadvertently create barriers for smaller or under-resourced communities. The underlying message from Quirk-Silva appeared to be that successful implementation depends not simply on setting ambitious goals, but on ensuring local governments have the resources and flexibility needed to meet them.
Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation - Post May Revision Hearing
The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation hearing on the May Revision was largely defined by a tension between the state’s desire to continue making significant investments in climate and infrastructure priorities and growing concern that the fiscal foundation supporting those investments may be becoming increasingly uncertain. While the hearing covered a wide range of proposals across transportation, natural resources, environmental protection, and energy, much of the discussion repeatedly returned to one central issue – whether the state can continue sustaining ambitious climate commitments amid projected structural deficits and softer-than-anticipated revenue assumptions.
Department of Finance officials described the May Revision as preserving key priorities while making targeted investments in natural resources, transportation, and climate programs. Much of the administration’s presentation focused on specific proposals, including climate bond expenditures, environmental restoration efforts, transportation initiatives, and operational funding requests. Among the largest proposals discussed were additional Proposition 4 investments, including up to $125 million toward acquisition of the Golden Gate Fields property for conversion into shoreline restoration and recreational uses, wildlife and wetland investments, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes funding, and transportation initiatives intended to improve mobility and system efficiency.
Transportation proposals also received significant attention. The administration highlighted funding to continue homeless encampment coordination activities along state rights-of-way, additional Clean California litter-abatement resources, and investments intended to improve transportation management through use of generative artificial intelligence tools. Planning for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games was also discussed, with proposed statutory changes intended to support transportation operations and traffic management associated with the event.
For Orange County, many of these discussions carry local implications because they touch areas where local governments regularly interact with state programs and compete for funding opportunities. Transportation investments, regional mobility initiatives, environmental restoration programs, and climate resilience funding all represent areas where Orange County agencies may seek future resources or partnership opportunities. Additionally, continued state investments in environmental infrastructure and transportation systems could affect projects throughout Southern California.
As the hearing progressed, however, the discussion shifted noticeably from specific proposals toward broader concerns about the state's long-term fiscal condition. Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) representatives acknowledged that tax revenues had substantially improved since earlier projections but argued that the state continues facing significant structural challenges. The LAO repeatedly emphasized concern that stronger revenues alone do not resolve underlying budget pressures and cautioned against assuming current conditions would continue indefinitely. Rather than focusing exclusively on current-year balances, the LAO urged lawmakers to think more cautiously about future obligations and reserves.
That concern became particularly apparent during discussion surrounding Cap-and-Invest revenues and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Updated estimates presented during the hearing showed auction revenues declining below January assumptions, reducing available resources moving forward. As a result, anticipated funding levels for several programs frequently relied upon by local governments and regional agencies, including affordable housing, transit programs, air quality efforts, and resilience initiatives, also declined.
For Orange County, that discussion may ultimately be among the most significant outcomes of the hearing. While there were no major county-specific proposals debated, the hearing suggested that future funding environments for housing, transportation, sustainability, and environmental programs could become increasingly competitive if Cap-and-Invest revenues continue softening. Programs such as Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities, transportation investments, and community environmental programs have historically represented important opportunities for local governments seeking state resources, and reductions in those funding streams could affect project development over time.
Overall, the hearing reflected that lawmakers are beginning to wrestle with competing realities – maintaining momentum on climate and infrastructure priorities while preparing for greater fiscal uncertainty. The larger message was less about any single proposal and more about the trajectory of state funding itself. The hearing suggested that future budget discussions may increasingly focus not on creating new programs, but on determining which existing investments can be sustained and which priorities rise to the top when resources become constrained.
Background
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, June 01, 2026, Upon Adjournment of Assembly and Senate Floor Sessions
Assembly Joint Legislative Audit
State Capitol, Room 447
- Presentation by the State Auditor
Status Report
Work in Progress
- Audit Requests for Consideration (Heard in Sign-In Order)
- 2026–107 Department of Human Resources – Dental Benefits Procurement (Senator Cortese)
- 2026–109 University of California – Library Resources (Assembly Member Muratsuchi)
- 2026–111 Law Enforcement Agencies – Information Sharing (Senator Archuleta)
- 2026–117 Employment Development Department – Unemployment Insurance Claims (Assembly Member Addis)
- 2026–119 Housing and Community Development – Housing Development Monitoring (Assembly Member Avila Farias)
- 2026–127 Local Law Enforcement – Human Trafficking (Assembly Member Michelle Rodriguez)
Note: Audit requests must have been received by February 12, 2026, to be considered at this hearing.
Thursday, June 04, 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
May Revision
All Departments - Open Issues
Thursday, June 04, 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
May Revision
All Departments - Open Issues
Thursday, June 04, 2026, 9:30 a.m. or Upon Adjournment of Session
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration and General Government
State Capitol, Room 113
May Revision
All Departments - Open Issues
Thursday, June 04, 2026, 9:30 a.m. or Upon Adjournment of Session
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation
State Capitol, Room 112
May Revision
All Departments - Open Issues
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: 6/16/26 15:00
Title: Campesino de California Outreach Grant – Radio Media (CCOG-RM) for Program Year 2026-27 (PY 26-27)
State Agency / Department: Employment Development Department
Match Funding? No
Estimated Total Funding: $100,000
Funding Method: Reimbursement(s)
Application Deadline: 6/18/26 15:00
Title: Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) grant for Program Year 2026-27
State Agency / Department: Employment Development Department
Match Funding? No
Estimated Total Funding: $2,700,000
Funding Method: Reimbursement(s)
Governor’s Press Releases
Below is a list of the governor’s press releases beginning May 20.
May 27: Governor Newsom proclaims Small Business Month
May 26: Governor Newsom signs legislation 5.26.2026
May 26: Governor Newsom proclaims Older Californians Month
May 25: Governor Newsom secures Presidential Emergency Declaration approval for Orange County hazmat response
May 25: Governor Newsom proclaims Memorial Day
May 24: California mobilizes 785+ emergency personnel in Orange County hazmat response
May 24: Governor Newsom proclaims state of emergency in Orange County in response to ongoing chemical incident in Garden Grove, makes additional shelter sites available
May 22: Governor Newsom announces appointments 5.22.26
- Danny Yost, of Sacramento has been appointed the Deputy Secretary of Legislation of the California State Transportation Agency
- Sarah Mangum, of Woodland, has been appointed to the California Educational Facilities Authority
- James Walsh, of Lodi, has been appointed to the California Educational Facilities Authority
- Mark Paxson, of Sacramento, has been reappointed to the Structural Pest Control Board where he has served since 2022
May 22: California is stepping up by deploying more than 2,800 personnel and equipment to fight wildfires in the state
May 22: Governor Newsom proclaims Harvey Milk Day
May 22: ICYMI: California’s economy continues to outpace the nation, new report finds
May 21: Governor Newsom announces appointments 5.21.2026
- Joseph Donaldson, of Sacramento has been appointed Deputy Director for Legislation at the California Department of Human Resources
- Leticia Ramirez, of Sacramento, has been appointed to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy
- Sushma Bhatia, of Cupertino, has been appointed to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
- Farfalla Borah, of Santa Barbara, has been appointed to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
May 21: California lanza SUN Bucks para el verano de 2026 para ayudar a combatir la inseguridad alimentaria infantil
May 21: El Gobernador Newsom amplía el acceso a CalHeatScore, una herramienta que salva vidas y mantiene a los californianos a salvo durante el calor extremo
May 21: California launches SUN Bucks for summer 2026 to help fight childhood food insecurity
May 21: Governor Newsom expands access to life-saving CalHeatScore, a cutting-edge tool to keep Californians safe during extreme heat
May 21: Governor Newsom signs first-of-its-kind executive order to prepare workers and businesses for potential AI disruption
May 20: Governor Newsom continues advocacy for LA recovery funding in Washington, DC
|
