Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Cdfa Budget And Programs topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate subcommittee questions CDFA budget as cyber, lab and farm-to-school spending rise

3172290 · May 1, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Subcommittee No. 4 on Tuesday heard an overview of the California Department of Food and Agriculture's proposed 2025–26 budget and pressed department officials on contingency planning, cybersecurity remediation, a new Turlock laboratory's operating costs, Farm to School grants and initial Proposition 4 climate bond allocations.

The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Subcommittee No. 4 on Tuesday heard an overview of the California Department of Food and Agriculture's (CDFA) proposed 2025–26 budget and pressed department officials on contingency planning, spending priorities and funding sources.

CDFA Deputy Secretary for Administration and Finance Arma Cozina told the subcommittee the governor’s 2025–26 proposal would support CDFA with roughly $775,000,000 and about 2,075 positions. The department’s funding mix in the governor’s proposal includes general fund, industry assessments, federal grants, bond and other funds. “CDFA’s mission is really to safeguard a resilient food system and promote an equitable marketplace,” Cozina said.

The subcommittee focused on several budget change proposals (BCPs) that Chair Cabaldon said required further review given the state’s broader fiscal constraints. Those included a cybersecurity remediation proposal, operational funding for a new Turlock North Valley Animal Health Laboratory, a $24.9 million Farm to School proposal and a $131.8 million initial appropriation request tied to programs identified in Proposition 4 (the climate bond).

Why it matters: The items under discussion carry operational and public‑health consequences (cybersecurity and laboratory capacity) and longer‑term policy and budget implications (climate bond spending and school food procurement). Members repeatedly asked how the department would adapt if expected federal funding declines and whether costs could be shifted to industry funds or otherwise reduced.

Key details and department responses

Federal funding and contingency planning: CDFA said federal grants account for about 20% of its overall budget in 2025–26 and that some federal cooperative agreements (notably food safety/produce safety programs) are likely to face a roughly 10% reduction next federal fiscal year. Cozina described ongoing conversations with federal partners and said the department is evaluating whether scope, rather than immediate state backfill, would be the more likely response if federal funding falls.

Cybersecurity remediation (item 12): CDFA requested $2.478 million General Fund in 2025–26 and five permanent positions to address identified critical vulnerabilities following a March 2024 incident that exposed private data on a public website. The BCP includes additional funding in later years ($4.1 million in 2026–27, $3.6 million in 2027–28 and ongoing) for upgrades, security assessments and monitoring. Staff and Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) representatives voiced no technical objection, but senators urged caution given overall general fund pressures; the subcommittee held the item open for further review.

Turlock North Valley Animal Health Laboratory (item 13): CDFA requested $1.61 million General Fund in 2025–26 and $3.3 million in 2026–27 (ongoing) to cover operating costs for the new 41,000‑square‑foot laboratory (the current facility is ~5,100 sq ft). The lab will expand necropsy and large‑mammal testing capacity in the Central Valley; CDFA described the request as consistent with prior operational estimates. Committee members asked whether special funds or industry assessments could cover any of the cost; CDFA said Food and Agricultural Code limits how certain special‑fund dollars can be used and that outbreaks such as highly pathogenic avian influenza have statewide public‑health dimensions, which supports a general‑fund ask. The subcommittee held the item open.

Farm to School (item 4): CDFA seeks $24.9 million General Fund in 2025–26 to continue and expand its Farm to School efforts, including a $20 million Farm to School Incubator Grant Program, $3 million for climate‑smart agricultural technical assistance, and $1.9 million for network programming. LAO recommended weighing the request against other general‑fund priorities and suggested some components might be eligible for Proposition 98 school funding if the legislature chose to reallocate. Committee members sought data about grant recipients and urban school participation; CDFA said it reached 49% of California schoolchildren to date and that 80% of schools served in the most recent funding cycle were Title I schools. The subcommittee held the item open.

Proposition 4 (climate bond) items (item 15): CDFA proposed an initial $131.8 million appropriation in 2025–26 for nine programs identified in Prop 4 (eight climate‑smart agriculture programs and one extreme‑heat/fairgrounds resiliency program), with the remainder requested later. The department proposed accelerated funding for some existing programs (SWEEP, Healthy Soils, urban agriculture, invasive species prevention) and phased approaches for new programs (tribal food sovereignty, farm equipment sharing). LAO found the CDFA expenditure plan generally reasonable and noted that using existing program structures allows quicker deployment; LAO recommended the legislature consider statutory guidance for new programs. The subcommittee held the item open to follow up.

Follow‑ups and outstanding questions

- CDFA agreed to provide additional detail on the current operating cost of existing animal health labs and follow‑up information on Farm to School applicant demographics and the geographic distribution of awards. - The Department of Finance and LAO urged careful value‑engineering of the cybersecurity request and suggested legislative review of which climate bond elements could be phased or require statute. - Committee members repeatedly asked departments to return with more precise breakdowns of general fund vs. special/industry funding eligibility and the consequences of alternative funding decisions.

Ending: The subcommittee declined immediate action on the CDFA items and left multiple items “held open” for follow‑up with Department of Finance and LAO analysis. The department and subcommittee agreed to additional briefings and written follow‑ups on vacant positions, federal cooperative‑agreement exposure, special‑fund authority and specific cost estimates for the new Turlock lab.