Transcript Highlights:

• The budget request you are considering today is focused on the operating budget for MassDOT and the MBTA
• Our pro forma budget was presented to our board of directors in February, and our deadline for budget
• That's been a hole in our budget.
• And so just to share a bit about how our budget, the budget that the EJ office is... Thank you.
• And so just to share a bit about how our budget, the budget that the EJ office is using right now.

Keywords: 1212, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee will come to order. Connor, please call the roll.
• Five years ago, the state's total budget was $92 billion.
• The current year budget is nearly $119 billion. This is an increase of 30%.
• The current year budget is nearly $119 billion. This is an increase of 30%.
• Last fall, the Legislative Budget Commission published the Long Range Financial Outlook.

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee met to release its fiscal year 2025-2026 budget recommendations. Chair Busata explained that the higher education budget recommendation totals $8.6 billion, which is $385 million, or 4%, below the current year, citing strong recent budget growth and projected future deficits as reasons for tighter spending. The chair also noted that the committee’s earlier meetings provided background on vocational rehabilitation, blind services, private colleges, student financial aid, workforce programs, and universities. The recommendation included increases for service provider rates in Vocational Rehabilitation, use of additional federal funds in Blind Services, an EASE grant increase for private colleges and universities, and adjustments to several student financial aid programs based on enrollment projections. It also moved the Open Door Grant Program from recurring to non-recurring funding, added modest increases for workforce education programs such as technical career education incentives, adult basic education, teacher apprenticeships, and workforce capitalization grants, and provided increases for the college system and state universities, including IFAS, strategic emphasis programs, performance funding, and faculty recruitment and retention. The chair also highlighted that the proposal includes recommended higher education member projects and outlined the next steps in the budget process, including compilation into a proposed committee bill, publication of the bill and related language, and consideration by the Budget Committee the following week. No votes were taken on the budget recommendation itself, and the meeting adjourned after a motion to rise without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 110 is a budget bill, junior.
• It makes technical amendments to the Budget Act of 2026 to identify budget-related legislation pursuant
• First of all, we usually have a budget deficit.
• We allocated $300 million in this budget.
• But, colleagues, this budget spends $355 billion.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What is your total budget? So, Mr.
• However, a fiscal year 25 budget was essentially flatlined.
• However, the new budget kicks in, and I don't have the money to pay them because our budget was essentially
• I can ask for a budget adjustment because of where you were at on your flatlined budget.
• We do this to make sure we have room to adjust the budget for we know that there will be budgets that

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Budget Committee will come to order.
• AB 107 is a budget bill junior, which includes a variety of changes to the budget acts of 2023, 2024,
• The first bill, AB 107, includes amendments to budget bill items in the 2023, 2024, and 2025 budget acts
• the budget of our citizens and the budget of the utilities to make sure...
• We're also considering the budget of our citizens and the budget of the utilities to make sure they are

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard two measures: AB 107, a budget bill junior making largely technical changes to the 2023, 2024, and 2025 budget acts, and AB 117, a trailer bill authorizing a $590 million loan structure to support four Bay Area transit agencies through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission using unallocated Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program funds. Finance explained AB 107 included technical fixes such as extending encumbrance periods, updating federal authority, correcting fiscal language, moving $20 million for California travel promotion from Visit California to GoBiz, and adding an APA exemption for implementation of already-approved climate bond programs. AB 117 was described as a cost-neutral regional solution with a 12-year loan term, two years interest-only, and repayment secured through existing state transit funding streams, with oversight by CalSTA, CTC, and MTC to limit impacts on other projects. Members raised concerns about transparency, competitive bidding, and whether APA exemptions and no-bid or emergency processes could reduce oversight, while supporters argued the exemptions were needed to get voter-approved climate and wildfire-related funds out the door. On AB 117, senators questioned whether the loan could become a de facto bailout if a Bay Area sales tax measure fails, whether post-pandemic ridership declines and safety/fare-evasion issues are temporary or structural, and whether the loan could jeopardize TIRCP-funded capital projects such as BART Phase 2. Transit agencies and local representatives testified in support, saying ridership is recovering, the loan is critical to avoid service cuts, and the Bay Area economy depends on transit stability. The committee first passed AB 107 on a 9-4 vote and AB 117 on a 9-4 vote, then held both bills on call. After recess, absent members returned and both measures were lifted from call and passed with 11 votes each. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Budget Committee will come to order.
• AB 107 is a budget bill junior, which includes a variety of changes to the budget acts of 2023, 2024,
• The first bill, AB 107, includes amendments to budget bill items in the 2023, 2024, and 2025 budget acts
• the budget of our citizens and the budget of the utilities to make sure they are held accountable for
• We're also considering the budget of our citizens and the budget of the utilities to make sure they are

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These just move money around from one budget activity to another to realign the DHS budget after the
• </c> are all from the governor's budget bill. are all from the governor's budget bill.
• Um for MA governor's budget bill.
• </c> difficult choices in this year's budget. difficult choices in this year's budget.
• </c> benefit in the budget proposal. benefit in the budget proposal.

Bills: HF2434

Keywords: healthcare, personal care assistance, worker retention, disability services, state funding, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• CERA is used in the transportation budget for things like public transit, electric ferries, and electric
• should go into the account, the amounts that go into Aquadilla have been decided in the operating budget
• I'm also not expecting significant new costs driven by this bill, although the amounts that each budget
• budgets are counting on money that is more than is actually coming in through auction revenue.
• But we think that this is an important conversation worthy to have in a supplemental budget year.

Bills: HB2251, HB2254, HB2385

Keywords: climate change, commitment act, emission reductions, sustainability, environmental policy, HB 2254, Washington, Health Care Authority, partnership access line, psychiatric consultation line, first approach skills training, behavioral health, mental health, assessment, administrative costs, health insurance, health carriers, self-funded plans, multiple employer welfare arrangement, MEWA

Transcript Highlights:

• CERA is used in the transportation budget for things like public transit, electric ferries, and electric
• should go into the account, the amounts that go into Aquadilla have been decided in the operating budget
• account, or CIA, which is used for CCA administration and tribal capacity grants in the operating budget
• budgets are counting on money that is more than is actually coming in through auction revenue.
• But we think that this is an important conversation worthy to have in a supplemental budget year.

Summary: The House Appropriations Committee held public hearings on three bills. House Bill 2251, sponsored by Rep. Fitzgibbon, would reorganize Climate Commitment Act revenue accounts by repealing several existing accounts and creating new operating and capital accounts, changing how auction proceeds are distributed when revenues are above or below a set threshold, broadening some tribal and overburdened-community spending language, adding electric vehicles and certain housing uses, capping Ecology administrative costs, and moving some reporting from annual to every two years. Supporters said the bill would simplify a confusing account structure and improve predictability, while opponents criticized the reduced reporting frequency and said it could weaken accountability. No vote was taken. House Bill 2254 would adjust the funding model for the Partnership Access Line and related behavioral health consultation programs by allowing the cost of the third-party administrator to be included in the carrier assessment rather than paid from general funds. Committee staff said this would produce general fund savings, and testimony from HCA, UW Medicine, Seattle Children’s, and others supported the bill as a technical fix that would stabilize the programs and potentially free up funds to restore service levels. No vote was taken. House Bill 2385 would extend deadlines and the expiration date for the Medicaid Access Program created last session, after federal HR1 restrictions prevented implementation of the original program and provider assessment. The bill would push out CMS submission deadlines, update the rate-setting reference year, and extend the act’s sunset date. The sponsor and the Washington State Medical Association supported the bill as necessary to preserve the option of pursuing the program later. The committee took no action and adjourned after the hearings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, we have a massive budget, not um, so uh the fiscal part of the budget bill for the elections is actually
• </c> with our standard budget rules? Mr. with our standard budget rules? Mr.
• </c> government budget omnibus bill. government budget omnibus bill.
• There is a $2.7 million budget.
• I am deputy commissioner at Minnesota Management and Budget. Minnesota Management and Budget.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• a line for their budgets?
• a line for their budgets?
• So I... ...cycle and expanding budgets rather than shrinking budgets.
• I do believe that concludes all of our budget hearings for this budget cycle.
• For this budget cycle.

Summary: The committee first heard the Office of State Treasurer’s FY27 budget presentation from Treasurer Vivek Malik. He highlighted record investment earnings, growth in MOBUCK$ linked deposits, record unclaimed property returns, expansion of the MOST 529 plan, and changes to the MoABLE disability savings program. Members then focused heavily on two budget requests: $750,000 for the Show Me My Retirement Savings program and additional spending authority for the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (MOST Scholars) program, along with a staffing request for compliance and communications positions. Much of the discussion centered on MOST Scholars’ rapid growth, how applications are prioritized, whether income is reverified, how funds flow through educational assistance organizations, and concerns about marketing, geographic distribution, and the use of public dollars for private schools. The treasurer also answered questions about the 529 plan, the pending lawsuit over the ESA general-revenue transfer, and whether funds should be swept back to general revenue when unused. Several members raised policy objections to MOST Scholars, including concerns about discrimination by participating private schools, the lack of annual income requalification, and whether the program shifts money away from public education. Other members defended the program as a parent-driven choice option and asked about expanding access, improving outreach, and ensuring the program is fully funded. The treasurer said the office was following the statute as written, that the program’s demand could exceed available resources, and that the office would continue to seek more funding and better outreach. The committee then concluded the treasurer’s budget hearing. The committee next began the FY27 budget hearing for the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development. Commissioner Bennett Boggs introduced the department’s leadership team and gave a brief overview of the department’s role in aligning postsecondary education with workforce needs through its coordinating board and strategic planning. The hearing had just started when the transcript ended, and no votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> has provided through the capital budget has provided through the capital budget so<00:13:16.839>
• until it passes the owns the budget until it passes the budget<00:23:24.440><c> and</c><00:23:24.640
• </c><00:26:18.279><c> and</c> are for this this current budget and are for this this current budget and
• fills up the budget.
• fills up the budget.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review the lapse extensions in the back of House Bill 25, which governs capital budget appropriations and bonding. Members were walked through how the bill is structured: section 1 covers general, federal, and other funds; section 2 covers highway fund appropriations; later sections authorize borrowing, restrict spending to the stated purposes, and explain why community colleges and the university system operate through their boards of trustees. The chair also explained that lapse extensions are needed because capital projects can span multiple years, and that appropriations normally expire at the end of the biennium unless extended. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on how to identify unspent balances and whether they should be extended, repurposed, or allowed to lapse. Members discussed that if a project is complete or an agency confirms it no longer needs the money, the remaining balance can be reused for another project or, if not needed, lapse back. The committee also reviewed the meaning of bill references and chapter numbers, and how to read prior-year appropriations and extensions in the worksheet. One example discussed was a 2023 Department of Administrative Services courthouse generators item, and members noted that some agencies may rely on encumbered balances rather than explicit lapse extensions, though the chair said he prefers including the extension for flexibility. The committee identified at least one specific change: the Jeffrey Ringe CTE renovation was removed from the governor’s recommended budget because the required local match was not approved, freeing about $18.5 million for possible reuse. Later, the chair noted that lapse extension 49 on the worksheet was no longer needed and could be removed, leaving an unspent balance of $81,500 available for repurposing. The discussion also referenced a Department of Transportation item, Caroline Stratford Freight Rail Improvements, which the agency asked to keep alive through a lapse extension so the funds would not expire on June 30. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we have our budget hearing.
• I will say we've gotten two more people to come to our budget hearings as a result of the new budget
• They just need to tell us when their budget hearing is, and then after they have their budget hearing
• And we do put our budget on... ...our county budget website. Continue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• budget?

Summary: The subcommittee of the Tax Reform and Relief Committee met to begin its study of the feasibility and desirability of revising the content of the real estate tax statement to improve property tax transparency. Legislative Council staff reviewed the study directive under House Bill 1176 and the statutory requirements for tax statements, including required line items such as true and full value, mill levy, legislative tax relief, primary residence credit, and the Legacy Fund portion of that credit. The Tax Department then explained how the current uniform statement is prescribed and approved, and noted that changes are typically driven by statute and implemented collaboratively with counties and vendors. County officials from the North Dakota Association of Counties described the full annual tax cycle, from county budgeting and valuation notices to budget hearing notices, levy certification, cap calculations, and final tax statement mailing. They emphasized that counties and auditors do extensive coordination with taxing districts and neighboring counties, and that the process is labor-intensive and often manual. Members discussed the limited public response to budget notices and tax statements, the difficulty of explaining the legislative tax relief line, the 3% cap and valuation issues, and whether more frequent assessments or different timing would improve understanding. Several members and witnesses noted that many taxpayers only engage when they receive their final bill, and that clarity may be more important than adding more detail. NDACO also presented a rough cost survey from eight counties, estimating an average tax statement cost of about 74 cents and a statewide total near $600,000 for printing and mailing tax statements alone, with outsourcing generally cheaper than in-house printing. Witnesses noted that House Bill 1176 added other mailings and notices, increasing county workload and cost beyond the statement itself. The committee then heard from software vendors, who explained how their systems handle tax billing, budget notices, valuation notices, primary residence credit processing, and tax levy calculations, and they identified the 1600/1685 primary residence credit and discount interaction as a current programming challenge. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational and focused on gathering testimony and identifying issues for possible future recommendations or bill drafts.

Transcript Highlights:

• This was adopted in last year's budget.
• budget with outward-facing services.
• That's definitely better for members as well as for the budget.
• Bayer supports the Governor's budget proposal and the related budget trailer bill on prescription drug
• I want to just put in my support for the budget request for that.

Summary: The hearing began with testimony from Let California Kids Hear and supporters urging action on pediatric hearing aid coverage. Advocates said California has repeatedly failed to enact a workable solution over the past eight years and argued that children need early access to sound to support development. The proposal discussed would limit the coverage mandate to the large-group market, which advocates said would cover roughly 70% to 80% of affected children and avoid the exchange-related cost issue that contributed to prior vetoes. Supporters, including parents, audiologists, and children’s health groups, backed the proposal, and the chair expressed sympathy and support while noting hope for a federal solution for exchange plans. The Department of Finance then gave opening remarks about the state’s structural deficit and the need to balance new investments against projected out-year shortfalls. HCAI followed with a broad overview of its programs, including CalRx insulin and naloxone initiatives, reproductive health grants, the Office of Health Care Affordability, hospital seismic compliance, workforce programs, and the diaper access initiative. Members asked about geographic targeting of workforce funds, the behavioral health workforce pipeline, and the status of the 21st Century Nursing Initiative, which HCAI said had reverted funds. The committee also discussed a proposed transfer of the Data Exchange Framework and Office of the Patient Advocate to HCAI, new reporting on long-term care staffing and health coverage waiting periods, and a Behavioral Health Services Act workforce proposal that would use BHSA funds to support training, stipends, and technical assistance while offsetting $100 million in General Fund spending; members and LAO questioned the offset and asked for more detail, and the item was held open. HCAI also presented the Rural Health Transformation Program, explaining that California received $233.6 million in federal funds for the first year and had to revise its proposal so that $35 million in provider payments would be tied to specific transformative activities rather than general financial relief. The program will fund rural care model redesign, workforce development, and technology/infrastructure improvements, with grants to be rolled out on a tight timeline and subject to CMS approval. Members asked about the size of California’s award, the use of funds for maternity care, labor and delivery access, dialysis, tribal set-asides, and the role of a technical assistance contractor. The department said the program will use supply-and-demand workforce modeling to target funding and that all funds must be obligated by October 30. Finally, the Department of Managed Health Care outlined its budget and two major bill-related proposals: SB 41 on PBM reform and SB 306 on prior authorization transparency. DMHC said SB 41 would require PBM licensure, ban spread pricing, require rebate pass-through, and regulate pharmacy network practices, while SB 306 would require reporting on prior authorization and create a list of services exempt from prior authorization. DMHC requested additional positions and funding to implement both measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• :17:20.600><c> and</c> talked about budget priorities and talked about budget priorities and putting<
• We're in a budget crisis.
• We're in a budget<00:38:06.440><c> crisis.</c> budget crisis. budget crisis.
• </c><01:01:08.680><c> off</c> amendment that threw the budget off amendment that threw the budget off
• out of the budget?

Keywords: Continuation of today's legislative session, beginning at 7:45 pm., 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's that Budget Adjustment Request Authority.
• I'm also with the State Budget Division at DFA.
• The FY27 amount, I believe, is just a small amount of the budget that was in the budget across the base
• And I'm just saying, you know, I know the budget ended up in the Senate last year, the supplemental budget
• LFC budget record. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If we just make this a product of budget discussions and we pass a budget at the same time we pass it
• A couple of things regarding the budget: we will do a budget this year.
• It will be a balanced budget.
• A couple things regarding the budget. We will do a budget this year. It will be a balanced budget.
• to balance the budget, and I am willing to commit that... ...million dollars a year in this budget to

Summary: The joint House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees met to hear identical Arizona tax conformity bills, HB 2153 and SB 1106, which would conform state tax law to the federal Internal Revenue Code as of Jan. 1, 2026, with some provisions applied retroactively to tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bills exclude the federal senior deduction for those 65 and older, the higher state and local tax deduction, and the new car loan interest deduction, while including a $6,000 retirement-income deduction for taxpayers 60 and older, a $6,000 Roth IRA contribution deduction, a higher dependent tax credit, and a deduction for child and dependent care expenses above the federal credit. The JLBC fiscal note estimated a $441.3 million general fund revenue loss in FY 2026, and members discussed that this was roughly the same as full conformity because the bill’s adjustments offset some of the federal changes. Bill sponsors and supporters argued the measure should be enacted early to give taxpayers and tax preparers certainty before filing season, noting that the Department of Revenue had already issued forms assuming conformity and that delay could force amended returns. They said the bill reflects a negotiated package that preserves most of the federal tax relief while tailoring it for Arizona, especially by lowering the senior deduction age to 60 and replacing the auto loan deduction with family-focused provisions such as the higher child credit and child care deduction. The Arizona Society of CPAs and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club supported the bills, emphasizing the need for early conformity and fewer filing complications. Opponents, including Save Our Schools Arizona, the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, Opportunity Arizona, and several individuals, argued the package would reduce state revenue, worsen the structural deficit, and mainly benefit higher-income taxpayers and corporations. Some witnesses criticized the inclusion of federal school-choice-related provisions and warned about uncertainty around future federal guidance, while others said the bill should not move ahead before the budget process. Members also debated whether taxpayers would need to file amended returns if the state later diverged from the Department of Revenue forms, and whether the senior and child care provisions were targeted or equitable. The transcript ends during public testimony, with no final committee vote or action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• In our budget, 41% of our total budget in the general fund is payroll for police and firefighters.
• their budget from going from 3.5 to 10. 2.5.
• to 50% of our budget, that's 2.5%.
• Oil and gas factors. ...about 10 to 15% of our budget.
• Our numbers, as we're looking at this year's budget versus what's being proposed for next year's budget

Bills: HB17, HB23, SB 10

Keywords: property tax, school funding, enrollment changes, inflation adjustment, tax rate notice, property tax exemption, ad valorem tax, Texas Tax Code, nonprofit corporation, charitable organization, educational nonprofit, scientific nonprofit, agriculture support, youth programs, community education, county population threshold, large county, local government revenue, leasehold interest, possessory interest

Transcript Highlights:

• It is truly budget dust.
• The loss to San Mateo County in our budget will be 18%.
• However, the elimination was reflected in the budget.
• The budget item I'm going to talk about today very briefly is $15 million for FY 26-27, another The budget
• It's in our budget. We're accounting for it.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> if those um aspects of our budget if those um aspects of our budget weren't<00:10:37.600><c> um<
• </c><00:10:41.399><c> would</c> historical times what our budget would historical times what our budget
• And just quickly on our administrative budget, of course our budget has grown over time in total, and
• </c><01:04:49.359><c> neutral</c> programs we have a few budget neutral programs we have a few budget
• </c><01:17:54.199><c> cuts</c> question was the impeding budget cuts question was the impeding budget

Keywords: 1183, house