Transcript Highlights:

• We need a funded CSU that supports the CSU leadership.
• We need a funded CSU that supports every corner of the state and its employees, and I look forward to
• I think we need to fundamentally review this allocation of funding shift while at the same time, and
• that we need to stay strong.
• The Law Library has historically been funded through a mix of General Fund support and special fund support

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance met to review CSU and State Library budget issues, enrollment trends, the Capital Fellows program, and a Title IX update. Chair David Alvarez opened by stressing that CSU faces serious financial pressure, including a systemwide deficit and proposed cuts that he and several members said were too large and likely to harm access, course offerings, and student services. Public comment focused heavily on the Braille Institute Library, with patrons, staff, veterans, and advocates urging restoration of funding and warning that the proposed cut would severely affect blind and visually impaired Californians across Southern California. Several CSU faculty, staff, and union representatives also opposed the proposed reductions and warned of larger class sizes, fewer sections, and layoffs. On the CSU core operations item, the Department of Finance explained the Governor’s proposal to reduce ongoing General Fund support by about $375 million and defer a 5% base increase, while the LAO said CSU core funding would be roughly flat once tuition and targeted augmentations were considered, but warned that rising costs and prior shortfalls would still force campuses to cut spending. CSU’s Chancellor’s Office said the proposed cut would deepen existing problems, citing prior-year budget gaps, job losses, reduced course sections, and student-service reductions. Members pressed Finance and the LAO on whether cuts could be made more surgically, especially at the Chancellor’s Office or in institutional support rather than in instruction, and the LAO said the Legislature has flexibility to target cuts more specifically. CSU also described ongoing consolidation efforts, including shared services among campuses and the planned Cal Maritime/Cal Poly San Luis Obispo integration, while cautioning that savings are not yet fully known. The committee then discussed CSU enrollment. The LAO recommended holding enrollment targets flat because the budget does not add new funding, while CSU reported strong recent growth, including more California residents, record first-year enrollment, and expanded direct admissions and transfer pathways. Members questioned why some campuses with high demand turn away many applicants while others continue to lose enrollment, and CSU said it is shifting resources from campuses with sustained declines to those with demand, using a 10% below-target threshold. The committee also discussed whether enrollment declines mirror local population trends, how to improve marketing and program alignment, and whether lessons from Cal Poly Humboldt’s conversion could inform other campuses such as Sonoma State. The Capital Fellows item drew a Finance proposal for a salary increase and an LAO counterproposal for a smaller raise plus future COLA language; the committee kept the item open. Finally, CSU reported progress on Title IX compliance, saying it has completed most State Auditor recommendations, expanded civil rights staffing, and increased training, prevention, and case-management efforts, though members asked how proposed budget cuts might affect those services.

Transcript Highlights:

• to fund.
• a dedicated funding source to that trust fund.
• In which we would have to look at the needs of the state every year, and we could, we would fund through
• Senator Trumbull: It is clear to me that we need to make holistic changes in the way that we fund our
• How much will they need to fund police and fire? We don't know. I don't know.

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce property taxes by lowering assessment caps on non-homestead property, expanding homestead exemptions over time, and allowing local governments to increase exemptions further. The sponsor argued the measure would provide broad property tax relief while requiring revenues to be directed to core services such as public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resource projects, with a trust fund intended to help local governments transition. Senators raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal score, the effect on counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. Several amendments were debated. Senator Polsky’s amendment to explicitly authorize user fees and non-ad valorem assessments to offset lost property tax revenue failed. Senator Avila’s amendment broadening permissible uses of ad valorem revenue to include county constitutional officers and other expenditures approved by local governing bodies was adopted after debate over whether the bill would otherwise underfund essential functions. Senator Smith’s sunset amendment, which would have made the constitutional changes expire after five years, failed. Senator Smith’s amendment to allow tourism development tax revenue to support public safety and education also failed. Senator Graal’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund language was adopted, with supporters arguing the Constitution should not promise an unfunded account. Additional late-file amendments were considered. Senator Berman’s proposal to change the ballot title to more neutrally describe the measure as affecting property taxes and local community service reductions failed. Senator Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal was adopted, preserving school taxes. Senator Smith’s amendment narrowing the non-homestead assessment cap reduction to small businesses only failed. The committee then returned to the bill as amended and continued questioning the sponsor about eligibility, fiscal impacts, and whether the proposal could lead to local governments offsetting lost revenue through special assessments or other charges.

Transcript Highlights:

• show the balances of these funds.
• need to match that $90 million with another $90 million to get what we need on the ESPA.
• Loans Revolving Loan Fund.
• the monies were spent, they did not need to be reappropriated anymore and kind of set up. ...funds,
• and this enhancement, both on dedicated funds, not general funds.

Summary: The committee first reviewed the Department of Water Resources budget. Analysts and Director Matthew Weaver explained the agency’s staffing, continuously appropriated funds, and the effect of ARPA and other one-time infrastructure dollars on the budget. Members asked about efforts to stabilize the Snake River Plain aquifer, the impact of budget holdbacks, groundwater monitoring, and the status of major recharge and conversion projects. Weaver and Water Resource Board Chairman Jeff Raybould said the state is working to reduce groundwater pumping, expand recharge, and build infrastructure to reach a long-term managed recharge goal of 350,000 acre-feet annually, with current recharge averaging about 251,000 acre-feet and capacity potentially exceeding 500,000 acre-feet in good water years. They also discussed project delays caused by permitting, federal land access, and coordination with multiple landowners, and said the $30 million infrastructure appropriation was fully obligated and largely spent. The committee also discussed water projects in other basins, including the Palouse Basin, Mountain Home, Elmore County, and the Bear River. Raybould said the board is considering a Bear River study to identify storage, recharge, and irrigation opportunities under the Bear River compact, and estimated that some future projects, such as a Moscow-area pump station and pipeline, could be very expensive. Members raised concerns about data centers, water quality in the Snake River Plain aquifer, and the role of private and local matching funds in water infrastructure. Weaver said data center water use is a public-interest issue that depends on scale and location, and that groundwater contamination issues are generally handled by the Department of Environmental Quality. The committee then heard the Soil and Water Conservation Commission presentation, which focused on the proposed merger/affiliation with the Department of Water Resources and on funding for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). Weaver, serving as interim administrator, said a stakeholder review recommended moving the commission’s affiliation from Agriculture to Water Resources while preserving its current duties, nonregulatory mission, and resources. He said related legislation and a concurrent resolution would support that transition and allow time for further code review and a combined budget in 2027. Analysts also explained a supplemental and FY 2027 enhancement for CREP funding, noting that rising land values increased the state match needed for enrolled acres. Weaver said CREP can help reduce groundwater pumping, that about 11,000 of the 50,000-acre statewide cap are currently enrolled, and that full enrollment could significantly aid aquifer conservation. The committee adjourned after thanking the agencies and noting the next day’s agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund.
• Water Project Fund, and Colonial Infrastructure Fund have regular sources.
• These are the people, the kind of technical assistance that you need that no one else is funding.
• So, funded through our general fund, the borrower...
• They need.

Committee: House House Rural Development, Land Grants And Cultural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• This request of $5.962 million is needed to fully fund phase three.
• This request of $5.962 million is needed to fully fund phase three for completing the building improvements
• If the $10 million General Fund isn't there to repay it, some of those fees that were proposed will need
• Without this extension, DIR would lose the authority needed to continue funding staff responsible for
• The department has two funding sources: the Cannabis Control Fund and the Cannabis Tax Fund.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee 5 on State Administration held a May Revise hearing focused on state administration proposals, with the chair noting no actions would be taken and all items would remain open. The committee heard presentations on a range of budget proposals, including technical adjustments for the Governor’s Office of Service and Community Engagement and the California Workforce Development Board, security and election-related funding for the Secretary of State, modernization and loan-backfill requests for the Department of Consumer Affairs, and multiple Employment Development Department updates covering EDD Next, UI and DI/PFL benefit estimates, workforce funding, and an EMT training reappropriation. Several items drew discussion from the LAO and committee members. The LAO generally supported technical or modernization items such as PERB’s implementation requests, GoServe’s College Corps adjustment, the Secretary of State’s security and HAVA grant items, and the Board of Pharmacy modernization proposal, but raised concerns about the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education’s proposed $10 million General Fund backfill and interest-free loan language. For EDD, the LAO flagged the size of the DI/PFL benefit adjustment and the unusual structure of the document management system proposal within EDD Next, while EDD said the changes reflected higher participation and benefit levels after SB 951 and ongoing modernization needs. The Department of Industrial Relations drew the most extensive questioning. It proposed funding for legal unit reclassifications, EAMS and Cal/OSHA data modernization, a new Cal/OSHA emerging technologies unit, a COYA reappropriation, and trailer bill changes requiring electronic payment of employer assessments and adjusting the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board timeline. Members pressed DIR on high vacancy rates, long wage theft and workers’ compensation backlogs, low collection rates for fines, and the need for clearer workload and outcome measures. DIR said the requests were intended to improve efficiency, support audits and corrective action plans, and better address emerging workplace risks, while the LAO said the workload drivers behind delays remain unclear. The hearing also included support for CalHR’s employee assistance program consolidation and CDT’s proposal to expand “Poppy,” a statewide generative AI assistant for state employees.

Transcript Highlights:

• you need and make sure the equipment that you need is there.
• State funding has proven to work to address this need for legal services.
• State funding has proven to work to address this need for legal services.
• We need to find sustainable, permanent funding streams to go to California veterans through the VA, or
• Again, with the uncertainty of this administration's distribution of that unallocated funds, we need

Committee: House Military and Veterans Affairs

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs held an informational hearing focused on the effects of federal budget and staffing cuts on veterans and on California’s systems for delivering veteran services. In opening remarks, the chair argued that cuts to the VA, federal workforce, Medi-Cal, SNAP/CalFresh, and related programs would disproportionately harm veterans, citing impacts on health care, suicide prevention, housing, and employment. The committee then heard from the California Military Department, CalVet, county veteran service offices, and veterans legal and housing organizations about how state and local programs are responding. Major General Matthew Beavers of the California Military Department described the department’s structure, its response to the Los Angeles fire emergency, and concerns that federal cuts could reduce readiness, training, equipment, and funding for programs such as Work for Warriors, STARBASE, and counterdrug operations. Members asked about how service members access VA benefits, the impact of federal cuts on readiness, and what the Legislature can do to help. Beavers said the state should advocate for recapitalized equipment and stable funding, and he criticized some federal efficiency reviews as wasteful while warning that reduced readiness would ultimately affect Californians. CalVet Deputy Secretary Roberto Herrera, L.A. County veteran services director Jim Zenner, and Swords to Plowshares legal director Mo Cedar emphasized that county veteran service officers and legal aid are essential for claims, appeals, housing, and mental health access. They said the PACT Act and federal staffing strains have increased demand, while county offices remain underfunded. Testimony highlighted the value of CalVet strike teams, MHSA-funded legal services, and county programs that bring in federal benefits and reduce homelessness and incarceration costs. Committee members generally agreed that California should sustain and expand these supports, improve data sharing, and protect state programs from federal cuts. In the final panel on mental health and suicide prevention, Herrera, Amy Fairweather of Swords to Plowshares, and Robert Storr of U.S. Vets described state-funded programs such as the Veterans Support Self-Reliance program and the California Veterans Health Initiative. They reported improved outcomes for veterans in supportive housing and expanded no-cost counseling statewide, but warned that step-down funding and federal uncertainty could jeopardize services. Members asked about wait times, access, and who can use VA services, and witnesses explained that the main barriers are workforce shortages and capacity, not just eligibility. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Almost all of them receive some type of non-dilutive funding, so government funding, and it's really
• Like I said, we need them to test hypotheses. They need the funding to do that.
• needed to survive.
• One, you need an institution to do the clinical trial. We need the UC hospitals.
• You need people to consent patients. You need people who are going to do data.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Biotechnology and Medical Technology met on August 19, 2025 to examine the effects of federal grant cuts, tariff uncertainty, and related policy changes on California’s biotech, medtech, and academic research ecosystem. The chair and panelists emphasized California’s outsized role in the industry, describing major clusters in the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and San Diego, and explaining how research, startup formation, manufacturing, and clinical trials are interconnected across the state. Speakers from Biocom California, California Life Sciences, Farma, UC, Stanford, CSU Biotech, and UCLA all argued that NIH and NSF funding are foundational to discovery, workforce training, and commercialization, and that disruptions are already chilling venture capital, startup formation, and hiring. Witnesses described several concrete impacts: suspended or terminated grants, reduced doctoral admissions, fewer training opportunities, canceled retreats and internships, and anxiety among graduate students and early-career researchers. UC reported hundreds of millions of dollars in suspended or terminated NIH and NSF funding, while Stanford said more than a thousand training and career-development grants nationwide have been frozen or ended, affecting multiple trainees per grant. CSU Biotech said 133 federal grants had been terminated, scaled back, or canceled, totaling about $140 million, including nearly $30 million from NIH and NSF. Industry representatives also warned that proposed antitrust limits on mergers and acquisitions could undermine the standard biotech exit path and further deter investment. Committee members asked about the duration of the disruption, the possibility of state action to offset federal losses, and whether California could better support workforce development, manufacturing, and R&D tax credits. Panelists urged the Legislature to preserve and expand state support for STEM education, internships, apprenticeship pathways, manufacturing incentives, and the R&D tax credit, and to consider infrastructure and housing as part of competitiveness. They also noted that tariffs are already raising costs for medtech components and building materials, and that China is increasingly competing for R&D, talent, and licensing deals. No formal votes or bill actions were taken at the hearing; the meeting was informational and focused on testimony and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• For federal funding.
• So again, general fund on the left, and then other state funds, inter-agency transfers, federal funds
• They're needing help to be able to get the help that they need.
• That they might need.
• Or if it's a budget-related thing, how much money funding do we need so we can get those early to the

Transcript Highlights:

• Home Safe and BFH are funded only by recurring time-limited funds and have no ongoing funding.
• : $150 million in General Fund, $95.8 million in federal funds, and $29.3 million in special funds.
• , that is $150 in general funds, $95.8 million in federal funds, and $29.3 million in special funds.
• being really a cut in funding, with the increased need and increased inflation.
• But more important, we need these programs to be supported by ongoing funding, not one-time allocations

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services heard an overview from the California Department of Aging on the state’s Master Plan for Aging, including progress at the five-year midpoint, local aging and disability action plans, HCBS gap analysis, workforce work, and stakeholder engagement. The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted the department’s budget was relatively flat but flagged federal H.R. 1 pressure on nutrition-related programs. Members discussed how H.R. 1 and broader federal and state budget pressures could affect older adults through other programs, even where the Department of Aging itself had no direct cut. The committee also heard a stakeholder request from the California Association of Area Agencies on Aging for $62.3 million to support Older Californians Act services, with Finance cautioning that any added ongoing spending would worsen out-year deficits. The committee then reviewed several Department of Aging proposals, including HICAP modernization to add paid counselors and reduce reliance on volunteers, and senior meal program oversight for virtual congregate/to-go meals under AB 1476. Members also discussed the status of area agencies on aging in Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties, including a new RFP process in the Central Coast and the need to protect service continuity during transitions. Finance clarified that remaining modernizing Older Californians Act nutrition funds can still be used through June 2029. The Department of Social Services presented a series of items. These included new federal Medicaid Access Rule implementation for IHSS grievance and critical incident systems; housing and homelessness programs for CalWORKs Housing Support, HDAP, Home Safe, and Bringing Families Home, with testimony that one-time funds are expiring and service levels will likely decline; permanent position authority for housing and homelessness administration; a facility management system to replace aging licensing systems; home care services branch solvency and regulations; child care centers in multifamily housing; the Seizure Emergency Response Act; licensing during emergencies and disasters; and the Family Preparedness Plan Act. The committee also heard a detailed exchange about the Autumn Oaks facility in Tulare County, where Senator Grove raised concerns about 53 complaints and the handling of unsafe conditions; CDSS said it is reviewing the matter and has authority to take administrative action even after a license surrender. No votes were taken, and items were held open.

Transcript Highlights:

• WHAT DO WE NEED GOING FORWARD?
• THE LAST BOX IS LOCAL FUNDING.
• AND THIS COULD BE COUNTY FUNDS OR MUNICIPAL FUNDS, COMMUNITY PARTNERS SO YOU HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE
• THERE ARE THINGS WHILE WE BOTH NEEDED PEOPLE TO FUND A PARTICULAR SERVICE BE IT THROUGH VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION
• THEY KNOW BEST WHAT IT IS THEY NEED SO WE NEED TO LISTEN TO THEM.

Transcript Highlights:

• Reform Fund.
• reform fund.
• That we all need.
• needs.
• It's very much needed.

Summary: The committee first heard a detailed staff presentation on the LESC FY27 public school support recommendation. Staff reviewed the budget structure and explained that, despite a downward revision in state revenue estimates, the recommendation still relied on recurring and non-recurring revenue to support educator compensation, insurance, transportation, literacy, math, special education, and other school programs. Major recurring items included a 3% compensation increase, funding for an 80-20 health insurance cost share, insurance premium growth, and transportation adequacy funding. Staff also flagged a possible supplemental need of up to $35 million for virtual education tied to rapid enrollment growth in Chama and Santa Rosa, and members raised concerns about the quality, accountability, and funding model for virtual programs. Members asked questions about transportation for rural districts, the Martinez-Yazzie lawsuit fees, the treatment of enrollment declines in the school funding formula, and whether the word “average” in salary language should remain in the budget. Staff explained that the SEG should remain whole, that the insurance and transportation recommendations applied to all public school employees but not contractors, and that the budget included multiple math-related investments spread across several lines rather than one single appropriation. There was also discussion of out-of-school learning grants, school meals, literacy center operations, special education training, and the Public Education Reform Fund, including the use of multi-year, evaluation-based appropriations for high-impact tutoring and community schools. After discussion, the committee adopted the LESC budget recommendation. The committee then moved to endorsed legislation proposals. It endorsed a bill allowing the secretary to suspend an individual school board member, with notice and appeal procedures clarified, and a bill creating an 80-20 health insurance cost-share requirement for public school employees, along with a study of the sustainability of public school insurance programs. It also endorsed a bill on attendance provisions for students with severe medical conditions, which would keep those students from being classified as excessively absent. Finally, the committee discussed a teacher residency bill that would raise stipend levels, allow residents to complete service anywhere in New Mexico, and remove the requirement that sponsoring schools must hire them, though the bill did not include an appropriation. Members also raised questions about bilingual, Hispanic, and Black education funding, cultural and linguistic supports in teacher preparation, and where various programs should be placed in the budget or PERF framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• needs to fund in reflect costs the state needs to fund in order<00:19:43.080><c> to</c><00:19:43.240
• So, if this funding source went away entirely, the state budget would need to find another $156 million
• a relationship with, but we will run out of funding at some point and recognize the need for a public
• a relationship with, but we will run out of funding at some point and recognize the need for a public
• at some point and recognize of funding at some point and recognize the<02:11:26.360><c> need</c><02:

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• the people in the middle need to get funding also.
• manner, but giving more funds to towns that have more needs than, you know, and giving less funds to
• manner, but giving more funds to towns that have more needs than, you know, and giving less funds to
• manner, but giving more funds to towns that have more needs than, you know, and that have more needs
• manner, but giving more funds to towns that have more needs than, you know, and that have more needs

Summary: The subcommittee opened its first meeting on retained education funding bills, focusing on HB 366, which concerns school building aid for eligible projects, and HB 295, which would make school building aid program funds non-lapsing. The chair framed the discussion broadly around whether school building aid should remain a state program, how to address limited revenues, and whether the current system should continue to prioritize debt service and the existing formula or move toward a different model such as per-pupil allocations, a dedicated fund, or a split between new construction and renovation. He also raised questions about whether leasing should be included and how to manage any new fund under current law and the school building authority structure. Representatives and department staff discussed the current backlog of applications, the age and condition of school facilities, and the possibility that large projects can consume available funding for a year while other districts go unsupported. Tim Carney of the Bureau of School Facilities introduced himself and provided technical context on the program and current debt levels. Representative Luneau argued that under the ConVal decision, the state’s responsibility includes school buildings, construction, and renovation, and that the program also serves an equity function by helping districts with less property wealth. He noted that construction and renovation have long been recognized categories and asked about leasing, which staff said is already supported in statute for charter schools and possibly CTE, with a cap of 30% of annual lease cost or $50,000. The discussion also covered CTE facilities: staff explained that capital funding for CTE centers is state-funded, that federal Carl Perkins funds cannot be used for construction, and that the current rotational capital model means only a few centers are funded each year, which may not match changing program needs. A committee studying CTE capital needs was referenced, along with concerns that the report from that work had not yet been received. Representative Papich urged the subcommittee to focus on policy, principles, and structure rather than just numbers, saying the current system produces a few winners and many districts that never receive aid. He favored a simpler, more equitable per-capita or formula-based approach, while acknowledging the need for a transition plan for projects already in the pipeline. The chair later cautioned against mixing maintenance and operations with construction and renovation, noting that operation and maintenance are already part of the adequacy formula and should not be confused with capital funding. No votes were taken during the meeting; the discussion was exploratory, with members and staff laying out competing approaches and identifying issues for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because obviously the needs are great, and we don't fund crack sealing and seal coating.
• Because obviously the needs are great, and we don't fund crack sealing and seal coating.
• Looking for funding for, or this trail, because obviously the needs are great, and we don't fund crack
• We see a need for a bridge or a trail; we may be funding it.
• <01:11:54.840><c> needs</c> funding needs funding needs how<01:11:56.320><c> we</c><01:11:56.480><c>

Committee: House Legacy Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Part B funds.
• federal funding.
• And then our Office of the Special Education Ombud is also completely funded by general fund.
• needs to be the last resort.
• Both recommendations increase federal Title IV E funding, which is for foster care funding, federal funding

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• So the funding formula here recommends a fund a budget of 1.0, 3, 9, 1 million dollars. You'll see.
• specific line items that that that funding could only be used for this funding.
• funding.
• If you think that it needs to be there needs to be other mechanisms to account for for situations like
• are able to meet the child's needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• through their funding model.
• This funding will put a dent in the list of repairs needed across all of the state's armories.
• Well, we also need to applaud you, Chair Garcia, because we've had many years of, unfortunately, funding
• arbitration trust fund.
• arbitration trust fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is an update, the 2025 update, to an assessment of city transportation funding needs that was done
• are, the amount of funding that cities have, what they need, and focusing on... ...the needs, the amount
• of funding that cities have, what they need, and focusing on kind of the gap there.
• Our approach to determine the annual funding gap is to take the estimated annual need for maintaining
• So this leaves a funding gap of $2.37 billion, plus additional needs that current data does not currently

Committees: Joint Transportation , Joint Joint Transportation Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• fund it's a plate fund fund um and as fund it's a plate fund fund um and as representative<01:32:56.360
• HHS Medicaid Enterprise modular strategy needs $3,375,000 in federal funds. No problem with that.
• HHS Medicaid Enterprise modular strategy needs $3,375,000 in federal funds. No problem with that.
• HHS Medicaid Enterprise modular strategy needs $3,375,000 in federal funds. No problem with that.
• HHS Medicaid Enterprise modular strategy needs $3,375,000 in federal funds. No problem with that.

Summary: The committee held a public hearing and work session on House Bill 25/25A, the capital improvements budget. Representative David Mills introduced HB 25A, which makes appropriations for capital improvements for the biennium and extends certain lapses from prior appropriations, noting it is based on Governor Ayotte’s budget. The hearing then focused on requests to add or restore funding for several projects, including community college capital needs, Veterans Home ADA and safety upgrades, career and technical education renovations in Milford, and airport infrastructure funding. Shannon Reed of the Community College System of New Hampshire asked for an additional $2.6 million for IT infrastructure, critical maintenance, and energy management systems, citing failing boilers, roof work, cybersecurity needs, and a recent costly water damage incident at Lakes Region Community College. John Graham, representing the New Hampshire Veterans Home, requested $1.5 million for ADA compliance and safety improvements such as floor replacement and wider doors, saying the work would help the home before an upcoming VA inspection and protect federal funding. Lance Whitehead testified for Milford CTE, asking the committee to keep $9.9 million in the budget for a scaled-down renovation; members discussed the town’s failed vote, the need for local matching funds, and the possibility of another vote next year. Tim Thompson of Concord and Margaret Burns of NHMA urged restoration of airport matching funds, arguing that about $3.6 million in state money would leverage roughly $62 million to $65 million in federal FAA funds for safety and infrastructure projects. Trisha Lambert and Andrew Pomroy of the Bureau of Aeronautics and airport management association explained the airport program, the 12 federally funded airports, and how projects are selected through airport master plans and a capital improvement program. After public testimony, the committee closed the hearing on HB 25A. In the work session that followed, staff distributed supporting documents, including cost breakdowns and comparison sheets. The chair indicated the committee would work from the governor’s $143 million capital budget as a baseline and proposed reducing it by about $10 million, largely by removing the Milford CTE item because both towns had voted it down and would not have another vote for a year. The chair said the goal was to bring the overall budget to about $133 million and then repurpose the remaining funds through straw polls and further committee action.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I am glad that we have that fund, and it certainly has been days that we've needed to tap into this
• At special funds.
• ongoing funding.
• Will there be funding based on need?
• Specifically for groundwater funding, groundwater recharge funding. OK.

Committee: House Budget