Transcript Highlights:

• They're going to need additional funding for that specific appropriation.
• If there is a need to put contingency language that if we do receive our full funding from the federal
• If there is an instance that we do need to review the lottery tuition fund, we will come back to you
• So they need to have the ability to flex that funding.
• So they need to have the ability to flex that funding.

Bills: SB37 , SB29

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Keywords: high-quality literacy instruction, science of reading, structured literacy, reading instruction, literacy assessment, dyslexia screening, phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, biliteracy, English language learner, ELL, bilingual education, dual language program, reading intervention, reading difficulty, reading improvement plan, literacy coach

Transcript Highlights:

• In terms of this funding split, we have $49.5 billion in General Fund, $138.5 billion in federal funds
• General Fund in the current year, and $222.4 billion total funds and $48.8 billion General Fund in the
• And not because the funding is not needed, but because the administration simply will not include the
• matching funds.
• funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> still nowhere near where we need to be. still nowhere near where we need to be.
• This funding is not housing.
• </c><00:39:17.359><c> for</c> funding uh for from the general fund for funding uh for from the general
• Um, but we need housing infrastructure bonds, we need rental assistance, we need manufactured home resources
• </c> says we need to continue this program. says we need to continue this program.

Committee: Senate Housing and Homelessness Prevention

Transcript Highlights:

• Some of those are removal of funding no longer needed, also right-sizing different grants within the
• And the $7.6 million decrease is largely tied to funds no longer needed that were carried forward into
• longer needed.
• from the overcollections fund that is no longer needed."
• needed."

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• It does need to be utilized within the internal service fund itself.
• It does need to be utilized funds.
• Um, does this fund need to exist? What does it look like to close it out?
• Um, does this fund need to exist? What does it look like to close it out?
• So, we would need to use it on fund.

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to have safer vehicles on our roads, we need safer speeds, and we need safer roads.
• We don't need it."
• On miles, you know, that is a lot of funding that is needed to keep bridges, roads, and everyone.
• If we want to do something, we need to put more funding into this department to have them be more efficient
• You'll see that the Fire Protection Fund, the Local Government Road Fund, and the DWI Grant Fund are

Transcript Highlights:

• goes to where the sure that funding goes to where the needs<00:36:04.800><c> are</c><00:36:05.280><c
• So any district that is carrying any reserve fund balances for that program would need to use that under
• So any district that is carrying any reserve fund balances for that program would need to use that under
• And 26 would need to be used for teacher incentive pay until those funds are exhausted.
• session, those funds would need to come out of a district's general fund to cover those costs.

Committee: House Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• We, obviously with the tight general, The difference in the funding needed.
• Page 28 is the high-need fund.
• And then here you can see the high-need fund, the average cost of those kids on page 30, some additional
• I want to speak back to the High Needs Fund and talk about, you know, as a budget team, we need to also
• I want to speak back to the High Needs Fund and talk about, you know, as a budget team, we need to also

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• needed.
• Unfortunately, one-time funding for one county department falls short of what's needed, and we look forward
• Unfortunately, one-time funding for one county department falls short of what's needed, and we look forward
• to backfill the total amount needed for the counties who count on this funding.
• At a time when basic need resources are more essential than ever and funding for disability services

Summary: The Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review heard the 2026-27 budget package, including AB 111 and AB 112 plus 16 trailer bills and two policy bills. Chair Laird described the budget as balanced over two fiscal years, with about $351.7 billion in total spending, $251.5 billion General Fund, and record reserves, while emphasizing investments in child care, homelessness, housing, Medi-Cal, education, courts, and other core programs. The Department of Finance presented each bill, outlining major items such as Medi-Cal adjustments tied to federal H.R. 1, child care and early learning funding, education and higher education investments, human services, developmental services, health, skilled nursing, resources, energy, transportation, housing, labor, state government, courts, taxation, and two policy bills on education governance and ballot measure placement. The LAO said it had no additional comments but was available for questions. The committee later achieved quorum and moved to member questions and comments, with no votes taken in the portion provided. Members largely focused on the budget’s fiscal structure and policy implications. Several senators praised staff and noted the compressed timeline, while Vice Chair Niello criticized the process as overly complex and burdensome. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas supported the budget but raised concerns about Medi-Cal changes for people with unsatisfactory immigration status, asking about access to care, the number affected, and county eligibility support; Finance said about two million people would transition to fee-for-service and that $39 million was included for care coordination, along with additional county eligibility funding. Senator Durazo said the agreement delayed, but did not resolve, cuts to immigrant health coverage, dental, and clinic payments, and argued that the budget did not create a true restoration mechanism. Senator Richardson highlighted hospital funding, public hospital definitions, DMV data protections, and court construction and maintenance needs, while Senator Grove questioned the sustainability of spending, the Medi-Cal savings assumptions, distressed hospital funding, Planned Parenthood transparency, developmental services changes, high-speed rail costs, and the property tax postponement program. Other members emphasized different priorities. Senator Blake Spear praised climate and parks investments, support for HAP homelessness funding with accountability, transit stabilization, and Care Court referral funding, while expressing concern about the lack of wildlife coexistence funding and long-term transit operating support. Senator Weber Pearson raised a technical concern in the health trailer bill regarding menopause language, arguing that the bill should refer to perimenopausal symptoms and should not narrow provider participation through contracting language. Throughout the hearing, Finance repeatedly explained that many of the budget’s savings came from reduced caseloads or delayed implementation of prior proposals, while some new spending was added to mitigate impacts and support administration of the changes. No final committee action or vote was shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we really need and appreciate the funding that you all have in the budget, and as you know, it is
• This funding reflects the need for new state investments to backfill federal resources that have been
• ><c> need</c><00:56:00.559><c> for</c><00:56:00.960><c> new</c> This funding reflects the need for new
• This funding reflects the need for new state<00:56:01.720><c> investments</c><00:56:02.720><c> to</c
• The decision to cancel transition funding for DCYF will leave the agency without resources needed to

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• And Charles, how much is in the rural health care fund? I need to check.
• They actually haven't set up a fund, so we need to go through the appropriations accounts to see how
• Line 119, that's a lot for that fund. You could probably come down on that if you need it too much.
• That's a lot for that fund. You could probably come down on that if you need it too, Mr. Chairman.
• of State funding the general election, and this is avoiding the Secretary of State needing to dip into

Bills: SB152 , SB145 , HB2 , SB190 , HB247

Committee: Senate House Appropriations & Finance

Summary: The committee first set aside Senate Bill 247 because the Attorney General and bill sponsor were not present. It then heard Senate Bill 190, which would authorize bonding to help Healer Regional Medical Center in rural southwest New Mexico replace an aging linear accelerator used for cancer radiation treatment. The sponsor and hospital representatives said the equipment is at end of life and that replacing it would keep patients from having to travel long distances for care. The committee adopted a friendly amendment adding an emergency clause, but members then questioned the financing, noting the $5.7 million cost, the lack of local matching funds, and the fact that the equipment’s useful life is only about 10 years while the proposed bonds would run for 30 years. After extended discussion about interest costs and timing, committee members explored alternatives to reduce the state’s borrowing burden, including using existing rural health care funds, federal grant money, or structuring a county lease arrangement rather than issuing bonds. The bill was left pending while staff and the sponsor were asked to look into those options and report back. The committee also briefly heard from the Department of Justice about concerns raised by the Public Education Department regarding Gallup-McKinley and online learning companies; DOJ said investigations were ongoing but it could not say whether a lawsuit would be filed. Members expressed concern about possible large liabilities and discussed bringing the Attorney General and PED Secretary back in executive session. The meeting then shifted to House Bill 2 and related budget matters. Staff walked members through numerous line items, flagging some as potentially duplicative, unspent, or in need of further review, including attorney general litigation funds, rural health, education, transportation, tourism, energy, and economic development items. The committee adopted the “grow” spreadsheet after members said they had reviewed it, and then discussed reserve targets. Staff presented several scenarios to raise reserves from about 26.7% toward the 27.5% target, including cuts to natural resource, environmental, higher education, and transportation appropriations. Members generally favored a flexible “scenario five” approach and were reluctant to sweep older capital outlay projects immediately, preferring to wait until the capital outlay changes bill is resolved. The committee planned to continue the budget discussion the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• federal funds.
• fund and dedicated funds.
• So the state hospitals will be able to absorb a little bit more of the general fund need on their endowment
• funds.
• funds are used in our budgets as a dedicated fund.

Summary: The Senate Finance and House Appropriations committee met with a quorum present and began with questions about a Rural Health Funding Task Force. Members asked who created it, what notice was given, whether it was replacing JFAC, and whether it was separate from the governor’s task force. The chair said it was created by legislative leadership rather than this committee, that JFAC would still control funding decisions, and that the task force was intended to provide structure and policy direction if the funding moves forward. The committee then received a General Fund Daily Update from Legislative Services analyst Christopher LaHosette, who noted updated revenue projections, three introduced House bills with general fund fiscal impacts, and the green sheet’s totalizing function for tracking legislation. The main presentation was from the Department of Health and Welfare on the Division of Welfare, Mental Health Services, and Psychiatric Hospitalization budgets. Alex Williamson reviewed the divisions’ roles, staffing, and five-year spending trends, and outlined the governor’s recommendations, including Medicaid eligibility system changes tied to federal law, SNAP administrative cost shifts to the state, Medicaid expansion work requirements, restoration of transfer authority, and behavioral health requests tied to the Jeff D. settlement and Idaho Behavioral Health Plan. Director Juliet Sharon said the department’s requests were largely maintenance, restoration, or compliance items, including system changes for twice-yearly Medicaid redeterminations and work requirements. Members asked about the impact of federal changes, the $5 million increase in welfare operations, vacancy levels, endowment funds, and whether the department could compare SNAP administrative costs to other states. Several questions focused on mental health cuts, the former Center of Excellence, the request to combine adult and children’s mental health budgets, and the effect of reductions on crisis services, ACT services, and mobile crisis units. Sharon and Behavioral Health Administrator Ross Edmonds said the department was trying to preserve crisis and hospital services, maintain separate tracking for children and adults, and monitor access closely while complying with legal and federal requirements. The committee also discussed Magellan’s contract, audit findings, and managed care oversight. Sharon said Magellan is reviewed through monthly, quarterly, and annual deliverables and can be placed on corrective action plans; she also said the department has processes to prevent payments for deceased or ineligible individuals. Members asked about duplication of services, the use of endowment funds at state hospitals, the need for more behavioral health workforce data, and whether the department could share equipment or contract out maintenance at the psychiatric hospitals. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after indicating it would meet again Monday morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• They may not need additional state funding. They can continue.
• They may not need additional state funding. They can continue.
• for projects that don't need state funding.
• These are lower-cost projects that don't need state funding.
• But we also need general fund allocations annually.

Summary: The committee held an outcome review hearing on AB 519, focused on streamlining California’s affordable housing finance system. State housing officials described the work group process and the resulting report, which calls for a consolidated application and coordinated review process across HCD, CalHFA, TCAC, and CDLAC, while preserving a separate direct path for projects that do not need state subsidy. They said the goal is to reduce duplication, align timelines, and get projects to construction faster, with implementation now being carried forward through the new Housing Development Finance Committee (HDFC) and related reorganization changes. Officials from HCD, CalHFA, and HDFC said the new committee launched July 1 and is developing regulations, a unified application workbook, and review procedures, with public comment and hearings planned before final adoption. They emphasized a two-track system: one for projects needing state subsidy and one for tax credits/bonds only. Members also discussed the transition period in 2027, the need to clear existing pipeline projects first, and the possibility of construction financing tools. Committee members raised concerns about transparency, stakeholder feedback, and whether additional statutory changes would be needed; staff said current authority appears sufficient. Affordable housing developers and advocates generally supported the reforms but said the work must go beyond a single application. They urged fully funding projects, simplifying post-award functions, modernizing asset management, preserving a direct path for locally funded and rehab projects, and improving geographic equity, especially for rural and farmworker housing. Several witnesses stressed that the system also needs stable funding, including general fund support and the proposed housing bond, and that the state should continue engaging stakeholders as the new process rolls out. Public comment echoed those themes and included a veteran describing the difficulty of navigating housing and VA-related systems, reinforcing the hearing’s focus on simplifying access to housing resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• funding needs.
• When we originally submitted our funding requests, we highlighted the need to fill critical roles and
• When we originally submitted our funding needs, I feel as though the vacancies that were reduced in our
• The majority of the funds, about 75%, will go directly to the counties with the greatest needs as defined
• And then secondly, what I didn't need to have is a certain number of ISPs trying to apply for funds in

Bills: SB 1 , SB1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• So that funded tuition freeze relief gives the colleges and universities the income stream they need
• Overall, the funding has met the needs of students and is sufficient, although some campuses experienced
• needs has Prov the funding<01:32:13.280><c> provided</c><01:32:13.679><c> has</c><01:32:13.800><c> met
• </c><01:32:14.040><c> the</c><01:32:14.119><c> needs</c><01:32:14.360><c> of</c> funding provided has
• met the needs of funding provided has met the needs of students<01:32:14.840><c> and</c><01:32:15.000

Summary: Minnesota State Colleges and Universities presented an overview of the system and several budget riders. Board Chair George Soul described the system’s structure, noting 26 colleges and seven universities governed by a 15-member board, and emphasized that Minnesota State serves about 270,000 students annually, including many students of color, adult learners, Pell-eligible students, first-generation students, and veterans. He highlighted the system’s workforce role, saying it offers more than 4,000 programs, extensive employer partnerships, and that 86% of graduates find jobs in their field or a related field. He then turned the presentation over to system staff to discuss specific funding requests. Associate Vice Chancellor Kim Lynch focused on the Z-degree textbook program, which supports zero-textbook-cost courses and degrees. She said prior legislative support has produced about $3.1 million in savings in academic year 2024 and more than $12.6 million in aggregate savings, with 10 colleges now offering Z degrees and 12 more on track or exploring implementation. She described the program’s use of open educational resources, instructional design support, and library resources to fill gaps where free materials are not available, and said students save roughly $7 to $10 for every $1 invested. Members praised the program and asked about its expansion. Associate Vice Chancellor Paul Shepard discussed student support funding, including a centralized basic needs resource hub, the Mantra Health mental health platform, and the emergency grant program. He said student surveys showed significant food, housing, and homelessness insecurity, and that the basic needs hub has served over 2,400 students with a 97% positive response rate. He said Mantra provides telecounseling, peer support, self-paced courses, and crisis support, and clarified in response to questions that it is not AI-driven and does not sell student data; general usage data is collected, and follow-up with campus counselors occurs only at the student’s request. He also said the emergency grant program has distributed over $3 million to more than 4,800 students, with grants averaging just under $700, and that campuses use application review and recordkeeping to manage repeat requests. Members asked about counselor staffing, data privacy, and grant safeguards. The final item addressed sexual assault reporting and prevention funding. System staff said the appropriation supports technology infrastructure for statutory reporting, case management for investigations, campus prevention training, and professional development for Title IX coordinators and related staff. They noted that the statutory student training requirement is funded by individual colleges and universities, not by this appropriation. No formal votes were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Needed funding right now. So, Mr.
• They are definitely in need of more funding.
• Tribal land has different funding sources, and they're fully funded. Need and 35 jobs in just mine.
• Speaker, kind gentlemen, I do feel confident that this funding is needed to fill an urgent need that's
• Process for other purposes so that funding would not be spent because it would not be needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• I rise to present House File 2144, which appropriates much-needed funding to the Family Homelessness
• House File 2144 appropriates much-needed funding to the Family Homelessness Prevention and Assistance
• /c><00:09:11.839><c> vast</c><00:09:12.200><c> needs</c> funding needed to cover the vast needs funding
• model, so this bill helps to create that funding mechanism and provides much needed immediate capital
• model, so this bill helps to create that funding mechanism and provides much needed immediate capital

Committee: House Housing Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• of when those funds are needed.
• of when those funds are needed.
• of when those funds are needed.
• of when those funds are needed.
• <c> for</c> government need some funds Advanced for government need some funds Advanced for RightWay<

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• and that the state recovers the funds that it needs to run these programs.
• and that the state recovers the funds that it needs to run these programs.
• funds that it needs<00:08:14.039><c> to</c><00:08:14.479><c> run</c><00:08:14.800><c> this</c><00:08
• So it's better to have this Education Trust Fund be only what is needed, basically for the minimum things
• be only what is education trust fund be only what is needed<00:16:24.800><c> basically</c><00:16:25.240

Summary: The committee first considered an amendment to add a new “Lakes” license plate to HB 2, with proceeds directed to the cyanobacteria fund for lake cleanup. Representative McGuire said the bill had already passed on consent and asked that it be included in HB 2; members discussed that it had also gone to the Senate. The motion to adopt the amendment failed on a 7-8 vote. The committee then took up an amendment imposing a 5% administrative fee on certain dedicated funds, with several exemptions for funds that could not legally or appropriately be charged, such as those involving federal money or bequests. Supporters said it would make the treatment of dedicated funds more consistent and raise roughly $31 million over the biennium for the general fund, while opponents questioned the number of carve-outs and who currently pays the administrative costs. The amendment failed on a 4-5 vote. Next, the committee reconsidered and then adopted an amendment changing the distribution of business profits tax and business enterprise tax revenue, reducing the share going to the Education Trust Fund from 41% to 30% and increasing the General Fund share. Supporters argued the Senate had overfunded the Education Trust Fund and that the change would help balance the budget without changing education spending levels; opponents said they could not support taking money from the Education Trust Fund. The amendment passed 5-3. The committee also adopted, by the same 5-3 margin, an amendment incorporating HB 741 language on open enrollment and student attendance in public schools, with supporters calling it House policy and opponents noting it had been a close, partly partisan vote in the House. Finally, the committee considered a change to the University System of New Hampshire budget that would reduce general fund appropriations by $40 million per year, offset in part by $15 million in previously approved unique dollars for a net reduction of $25 million per year. Supporters said the cut was necessary to balance the budget and that other options had been exhausted; opponents called it harmful to the university system and argued the committee should instead look to other areas, including education freedom accounts, for savings. The discussion continued, but the transcript excerpt ends before a final vote on the UNH item.

Transcript Highlights:

• That we need for a limited time period dealing with just this funding request.
• We wouldn't need land surveying because we can't do that through this funding.
• I would have to defer to the department, though, to see if they would need to accept the grant funds
• Chairman, this is totally separate from any state funding, and so if we did get more funds than needed
• And so if we did get more funds than needed, then it would just be a matter of appropriating additional

Summary: The Appropriations Division met in a work session on the draft Rural Health Transformation appropriations bill, 25.1392.01000, with no public testimony taken. Legislative Council and the Department of Health and Human Services walked through the bill, which would appropriate about $397.8 million in federal grant funds over two federal fiscal years, provide transfer authority, allow certain federal funds to be used for salaries and wages without counting against existing transfer limits, and authorize OMB to adjust other agencies’ spending authority if they receive grant awards through HHS. The bill also includes several temporary statutory exemptions to help implement the program, plus recipient acknowledgement/reporting requirements, periodic reports to Legislative Management, and an immediate effective date upon filing. Committee discussion focused heavily on how the federal rural health transformation money can be used and administered. Department officials explained that CMS will review projects for allowability and sustainability, that the state has flexibility to move funds among categories, and that the grant is limited to 10% administrative costs. Members asked about whether the funding could support renovations, equipment, ambulances, bulk purchasing, food distribution, and other rural health ideas, and were told many details will depend on CMS approval and the eventual applications. Questions also addressed cash flow, timing of obligations and reimbursements, FTE funding, and whether grant recipients should be told the program will not continue beyond the federal period; officials said the language is meant to prevent expectations of automatic continuation, not to bar future legislative action. The committee also discussed the bill’s use of a two-year appropriation amount, with staff explaining that the state must appropriate enough authority to cover the federal grant cycle and that unused authority would lapse if the full amount is not received or spent. Members raised concerns about whether the bill’s language could limit creativity or future program design, but department officials and several members emphasized the need for flexibility because CMS may reject overly specific directives. After discussion, the committee voted to recommend the bill draft to the full committee; the motion carried on a roll call vote, and the chair said the full Joint Appropriations Committee would take up the bill at the special session next week.