Transcript Highlights:

• And I know we have to pull our weight because we are such a big part of the budget.
• Budgets are financial documents, but budgets are planning documents.
• Budgets are financial documents, but budgets are planning documents.
• But I think there's ample opportunity, frankly, in this budget.
• But I think there's ample opportunity, frankly, in this budget.

Summary: The subcommittee met informally to prepare for markup of House Bills 10 and 11, with the chair emphasizing the state’s budget shortfall, limited general revenue, and the need to prioritize reductions carefully. He said members should send their funding priorities directly to him by the next morning, and he outlined a three-tier approach: items required by law or that prevent future costs, items that are necessary to protect vulnerable residents, and discretionary wants that would be cut once money runs out. He also said he wanted a fair, transparent process and set a target of $500 million in general revenue savings on the bottom line for these two bills, noting that overall cuts could be in the $2 billion range to reach that goal. Members asked about specific areas, including TANF funding, possible reductions, and how department-suggested cuts would be handled. The chair said he was open to using TANF instead of general revenue where possible, but each case would be reviewed individually. He also said departments had identified some legislative efforts and programs they believe they can do without, and he was willing to show those recommendations if reductions are made. Representative Black raised concern about proposed cuts to substance use disorder programs, arguing they save the state money and should be protected; the chair agreed that such programs can fit the “must” or “need” categories and said he was open to considering them. The chair asked members to submit any requests for increases along with offsets, preferably within House Bills 10 and 11, and said he would take those recommendations to the budget chair. He closed by reiterating that the subcommittee’s job is to prioritize spending in a difficult budget year and adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Conference Committee on Budget will come to order. Please silence all electronic devices.
• Healthcare budget: the House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget.
• Higher education: the House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget.
• The House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget.
• This concludes our 2026 budget conference.

Summary: The Budget Conference Committee met to exchange final offers between the House and Senate on the state budget. The discussion covered multiple budget areas, including Agriculture and Natural Resources, Health Care, Justice, Pre-K through 12 Education, Higher Education, State Administration and General Government, Transportation and Economic Development, Administered Funds, and PICO, along with related implementing bills, proviso language, supplemental funding lists, and the tax package (HB 7031E). Each chamber indicated acceptance of many of the other side’s bump offers and related items, including several bills tied to petroleum, retirement, prisons, collective bargaining, and higher education. No public testimony was taken; the chairs noted the offers had already been noticed to the public and declined to call individuals to explain them. After the exchange of offers, Senator Hooper moved to allow staff to make technical and conforming adjustments to the budget, conforming language, and tax package, and the motion was adopted without objection. The committee then closed with brief remarks from the chairs and adjourned, concluding the 2026 budget conference.

Transcript Highlights:

• Healthcare budget: The House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget.
• Higher education: The House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget.
• The House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget.
• The healthcare budget: The Senate accepts the House offer on proviso, The healthcare budget: The Senate
• This concludes our 2026 budget conference.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Healthcare budget: the House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget.
• Higher education: the House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget.
• The House accepts Senate bump offer number one on budget.
• Healthcare budget: the Senate accepts the House offer on proviso, Healthcare budget: the Senate accepts
• This concludes our 2026 budget conference.

Summary: The Budget Conference Committee met to exchange final offers across the major budget areas, including agriculture and natural resources, healthcare, justice, K-12 education, higher education, state administration and general government, transportation and economic development, administered funds, and PICO. Both chambers largely accepted each other’s bump offers, proviso language, back-of-the-bill items, implementing bills, and several related bills, including measures tied to fuel taxes, petroleum, prisons, retirement, collective bargaining, taxation, and higher education. Each side also reviewed and accepted the other chamber’s supplemental funding list, while the House offered its supplemental funding list for consideration. No public testimony was taken; the chair noted the offers had been publicly noticed and would not be explained individually. After the exchange of offers, Senator Hooper moved to allow staff to make technical and conforming adjustments to the budget and tax package, and the motion was adopted without objection. The committee then closed with brief closing remarks and adjourned, concluding the 2026 budget conference.

Transcript Highlights:

• You have already built into the budget a backfilling of those.
• Going into session and budgeting from that, right?
• And that's the bigger kind of budget worry that I have.
• Our 27 base budget plus expansions is a total of $15 billion. 85% of the Health Care Authority's budget
• You know, as we talk about FTE and agency budget.

Transcript Highlights:

• A quick overview of our budget: if these proposals are approved in totality, our budget will be approximately
• And so that is our budget request related to AB 8 here.
• And so if this budget request is approved, And so if this budget request is approved, we expect to hire
• Second, an overview of the panel's budget proposal.
• The department has seven budget proposals included in the Governor's budget for your consideration, with

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on State Administration heard several CalVet budget updates first. CalVet reported progress on the Southern California Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon, explaining that DGS is revising the earlier feasibility study to reflect a smaller footprint and lower grading costs, with updated numbers expected by the end of April. Members and public commenters emphasized the project’s importance and asked whether additional budget authority or trailer bill language was needed; CalVet said it may need more spending authority but wanted to return after the revised study is complete. The committee also reviewed the Yountville skilled nursing facility replacement project, where CalVet said construction is nearing completion, a certificate of occupancy was received, and the new 240-bed facility will replace Holderman Hospital while older buildings will be repurposed for lower levels of care. CalVet also defended eliminating about 178 vacant positions at Yountville and West Los Angeles as a fiscal and staffing efficiency measure, saying current care levels can still be met and that retention and hiring efforts are improving. The committee then took up the Department of Cannabis Control’s enforcement and legal affairs proposal. DCC described the size of the illicit cannabis market, said enforcement alone cannot solve the problem, and asked for additional sworn staff, a new Redding-area field office, and more analysts to focus on distribution networks, organized crime, environmental harms, and high-priority public safety cases. Finance supported the proposal as a targeted investment, while the LAO had no additional comment. Members asked about funding impacts and local co-location options, and DCC said the request would be funded from cannabis excise tax revenues and could help shift sales into the legal market. Public testimony from the cannabis industry strongly supported more enforcement against illicit retail and said it would help legal operators compete. DCC also presented its hemp enforcement and regulation proposal tied to AB 8. The department said the law closes loopholes around intoxicating hemp products, strengthens enforcement across agencies, and prepares for hemp to enter the cannabis regulatory framework in 2028. DCC requested staff for a civil enforcement unit, field-testing equipment, lab capacity to detect synthetic cannabinoids, a track-and-trace specialist, and a policy specialist. Members asked about enforcement in informal retail settings and consumer confusion, and DCC said the biggest problems have been smoke shops and online sales. Public commenters from the legal cannabis industry supported the proposal, saying intoxicating hemp has harmed the regulated market and created public safety risks. The Cannabis Control Appeals Panel then requested ongoing funding of $3.4 million to support 12 positions and its quasi-judicial appeals function. The panel said that with provisional licenses largely phased out, more annual licensees now have appeal rights and the workload is beginning to increase, with two cases currently on the docket. The LAO recommended limiting funding to three years and requiring a workload and comparative analysis before making the funding permanent, while Finance supported ongoing funding as consistent with the panel’s permanent statutory role. Members questioned the panel’s compensation and workload, noting that the five-member body is paid at a high statutory rate despite historically meeting only quarterly, though panel staff said the work now includes substantial case preparation and monthly hearings. Finally, the Department of Consumer Affairs introduced two proposals: $2 million ongoing for the Contractors State License Board’s IT needs and $251,000 plus one limited-term position for the Board of Pharmacy to implement Proposition 34-related licensing policy and reduce barriers to licensure.

Transcript Highlights:

• So let's talk about some of those challenges for 2027–29 in our budget.
• So let's talk about some of those challenges for 2027, 29 in our budget.
• We've got basically a projected structural budget deficit for fiscal year 28.
• That's only about 16% of the overall UW budget.
• And the most recent biennial budget, unfortunately, reverted back to lower levels due to the state budget

Summary: The Joint Committee on Employment Relations met on May 8, 2026, to review goals and objectives for the 2027–2029 master collective bargaining cycle and to hear updates on higher education and Washington Management Service bargaining. OFM’s Jenny Sheehan outlined the state workforce, noting that most employees are represented, the workforce remains heavily governed by civil service rules and CBAs, and the state is entering bargaining under a constrained hiring and budget environment. She described the bargaining timeline, the role of the June revenue forecasts in determining whether targeted compensation increases can be funded, and the state’s goals of affordability, maintaining labor relations, supporting equity, and addressing non-economic issues such as AI use, leave, immigration-related workplace concerns, and union access in a hybrid work environment. Sheehan also reviewed the 2025–2027 bargaining cycle, including the prior WPEA ratification issue and the requirement that tentative agreements be submitted by October 1 for financial feasibility review and possible legislative funding. She said the 2025–27 agreements cost about $1.2 billion in general funds and $1.7 billion total, excluding the later-funded WPEA agreements. In response to a question, she explained that paid family and medical leave is not bargained over directly because it is governed by statute and ESD rules. She then presented on Washington Management Service bargaining, explaining that only certain WMS employees are eligible to bargain, that representation remains small, and that current WMS contracts are handled through addenda to existing agreements. She also described interest arbitration for certain groups, including ferries and public safety-related employees, and said arbitration awards still must be financially feasible and submitted by October 1. The committee also heard from Western Washington University and the University of Washington on higher education bargaining. Western described its locally bargained contracts, the importance of local bargaining for workload, tenure, grievance, and safety issues, and the impact of the state fund split on budget planning. Western said it has no state funding for student compensation and has requested inclusion of student employees in the wage base. UW outlined its large workforce and the different bargaining frameworks under RCW 41.56 and 41.80, emphasizing that state funding and tuition make up only a portion of its budget and that the fund split and health care cost increases significantly affect compensation planning. UW also highlighted its request for state funding for academic student employee compensation, saying rising costs are reducing the number of positions and affecting class sizes and the academic pipeline. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after members discussed the upcoming bargaining and arbitration timelines.

Transcript Highlights:

• The appointment of a new DA occur to further move that budget back.
• The other money that they wanted has been put into their base budget.
• And so their base budget has an increase.
• budget, it was about a quarter of their base budget.
• It wasn't in the budget last year.

Bills: SB241, SB145

Keywords: child care, child care assistance, child care subsidy, early childhood education, early childhood care, daycare, preschool, pre-K, Head Start, Early Head Start, Children's Code, early childhood education and care department, ECECD, child care facilities, licensed child care, registered child care, copayments, waitlist, subsidy, federal poverty level

Transcript Highlights:

• budget year, and slightly reduced revenues in the third, fourth, and fifth budget year, our overall
• That we feel is a reliable number to budget on.
• But I don't know the budget side of that. But I don't know the budget side of that math.
• Why I'm watching the budget chair space? Yeah. Yeah. Why I'm watching the budget chair's face.
• , and it will be less dollars than the current budget year.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we can see, Española is about a $40 million operating budget, main operating budget, with about $8
• I think we need to re-look at that part of the budget.
• Our budget is growing and has been growing.
• Our budget is growing and has been growing.
• And then H-AFC has... ...budget of $900,000 to go toward this.

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The meeting began as an informal education budget work group focused on reviewing a revised House Appropriations and Finance Committee scenario and flagging concerns rather than taking votes. Staff outlined the main changes from the LFC recommendation, including moving the statewide student information system appropriation, adding funding for the Black, Bilingual, Multicultural and Hispanic Education Act, universal school meals overrun costs, an evidence-based CTE pilot with a 50% local match, STEM network funding, wellness room pilots, Martinez-Yazzie action plan items, and changes to innovation zone and out-of-school time appropriations. A separate handout on the seven-year CTE pilot explained spending patterns, reversions, and possible federal maintenance-of-effort concerns if the state continues funding beyond a true pilot. Members then debated CTE extensively, with several arguing it improves attendance, graduation, and career readiness and should be sustained or expanded, especially in rural areas, while staff and others emphasized that much of the current funding has gone to general operational costs rather than intentional program design and that regional or matched funding models may be more effective. Members also discussed STEM and math initiatives, the need for more industry involvement, and whether the proposed match requirements would be too burdensome for smaller districts and BIE schools. The discussion also covered the Black, Hispanic, and Multilingual Education Acts and the Martinez-Yazzie lawsuit. Some members stressed that the acts should be explicitly named in the budget language and not merely implied, while staff said the scenario reaffirms prior commitments by building the costs into agency operating budgets. Members raised concerns about charter school hold-harmless funding, declining enrollment, and the need to align spending with the needs of at-risk students. The work group ended the education portion without any votes, with staff noting they would incorporate the feedback and return with clarifications, including on CTE funding, the educational acts, and the charter hold-harmless item. The meeting then shifted to the child well-being and early childhood work group, where staff presented a revised Early Childhood Education and Care Department scenario. The proposal moved money toward child care assistance and early pre-K, kept the FIT program funding level unchanged, and used a mix of trust fund, TANF, federal, and operating-budget adjustments to close part of the gap between the executive and LFC recommendations. Members questioned the policy direction, especially the shift toward infant and toddler care and pre-K expansion, the impact on school-age child care, and the implications for continuity of care and provider costs. Staff explained that the scenario prioritizes younger children and at-risk families, includes language for a wage and career ladder, and would require legislation to raise the early childhood trust fund distribution cap from 500 to 525. Members also discussed a separate proposed CYFD pilot bill (HB 65), which would be distinct from ECECD funding. No votes were taken, and staff said they would return with more cost information on full pre-K plus wraparound care. A final work group reviewed C2 and Department of Information Technology-related appropriations. Staff compared the LFC and executive recommendations for new funding and reauthorizations, noting that the LFC generally limited new projects while the executive funded more. Members discussed several IT modernization requests, including the Secretary of State’s voter registration and election management systems, the Spaceport Authority, Game and Fish, the State Engineer’s WATERS system, ECECD’s FitKids and EPIC replacement discovery, and Aging and Long-Term Services’ enterprise system modernization. The main themes were whether to fund planning versus full replacement, how to avoid piecemeal spending, and whether new systems should wait for incoming leadership. The Secretary of State’s office said its system is nearing end of life and the planning funds would help prepare a realistic replacement request, while other agencies described aging infrastructure, cybersecurity risks, and the need for modernization. The work group did not vote on any of the items and ended with staff noting additional follow-up on funding needs and reauthorization details.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> left to note the page in the Bal budget left to note the page in the Bal budget book<00:03:06.720
• </c> made to address the impending budget made to address the impending budget deficit<00:08:06.319><
• book for dcyf the Governor's the budget book for dcyf the Governor's budget<00:08:40.080><c> book</c
• ><00:08:41.080><c> in</c><00:08:41.159><c> the</c> budget book in the budget book in the bill budget<
• </c> so like I said the next four budget so like I said the next four budget proposals<00:09:01.600><

Bills: HF2436, HF470, HF2643, HF2456, HF102, HF1367

Keywords: child welfare, economic assistance, child care, grant program, video security cameras, early education, scholarships, funding, children, families, Minnesota education, child care licensing, family child care, child care center, Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families, correction order, conditional license, fix-it ticket, documented technical assistance, license suspension

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, not on that subject, but on the budget subject, how are we doing with the back-of-the-budget cuts
• &gt;&gt; That's the budget. Sorry. &gt;&gt; That's the budget. Sorry.
• DHHS operating budget. And then the teal DHHS operating budget.
• </c> portion of the teal box of our budget. portion of the teal box of our budget.
• </c> &gt;&gt; It's not in the budget this time. &gt;&gt; It's not in the budget this time.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first handled routine business, including roll call and approval of the prior meeting minutes, with one member abstaining because of absence and one member opposing. The main informational items were a Department of Health and Human Services update on the rural health transformation grant and a public health briefing on vaccines, followed by a quarterly budget and staffing update and an annual report from the Permanent Subcommittee on Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Related Dementias. Commissioner Lori Weaver reported that the department submitted the rural health transformation grant application on November 4, described it as reflecting input from communities and providers statewide, and said CMS review and budget negotiations would follow before final approval on December 31. She said the grant could support hiring as long as administrative costs stay within the 10% cap, and that the governor’s office will oversee administration with HHS. Ian Watt then testified that New Hampshire remains committed to vaccine access, including through the universal purchase program and annual respiratory virus guidance for flu, RSV, and COVID-19. He said the state continues to use evidence-based review for vaccine policy, noted the CDC’s change regarding the combined MMRV vaccine for the first dose in young children, and said New Hampshire’s school vaccine mandates remain at nine for schoolchildren and 10 for child care, with statutory exemptions still in place. Department staff also said there have been no supply or funding problems affecting childhood vaccine access. Nathan White, the department’s CFO, reviewed the DHHS budget and vacancy trends. He said DHHS makes up a large share of the state budget, that about 31% of its budget is general funds subject to lapse, and that lapse projections are difficult because much of the budget is driven by utilization rather than personnel. He reported current projected general fund lapse of just under $20 million, compared with about $39 million in the statewide surplus statement, and explained that only about a third of DHHS general funds can actually lapse because of statutory restrictions. He also said the department has about 400 unfunded positions, contributing to roughly a $30 million general fund reduction across the biennium, and that the hiring freeze has pushed vacancy trends upward while critical direct-care positions are being prioritized. The Alzheimer’s subcommittee reported six meetings this year, presentations on state services, silver alerts, brain health awareness, and palliative/hospice care, and work toward a new state Alzheimer’s plan. The subcommittee is developing a needs-assessment survey for people living with dementia, caregivers, and service providers, with the goal of using the results and other data sources to inform the plan. Its recommendations focus on integrating Alzheimer’s and dementia materials into chronic disease and aging outreach, embedding brain health into systems of care, adding cognitive health measures to BRFSS, and continuing partnerships with statewide organizations. Members also discussed recent research and prevention efforts, and the committee noted that a separate bill is being pursued to include Alzheimer’s and dementia in existing public health awareness campaigns.

Transcript Highlights:

• Subcommittee Four of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee will come to order.
• If all of our budget proposals before you are approved, our total budget would be about $198 million.
• And is that also taken into account with this budget ask? It is.
• Our budget proposal operationalizes that in two ways.
• So the Senate Budget 724 is now adjourned.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:07:45.119><c> which</c> strong support of this budget which strong support of this budget which
• </c><01:10:34.080><c> and</c> I'm proud to support this budget and I'm proud to support this budget and
• </c><01:48:19.440><c> or</c> about $40 billion in this budget or about $40 billion in this budget or
• We look to budget cuts, but rarely do we look at tax expenditure cuts to balance the budget.
• </c> the budget. the budget.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The budget is broken into four programs.
• Presents a difficult budget challenge.
• basis and through the Unified Budget.
• We have a budget committee where all budgets are vetted, and they make themselves available.
• Thank you for the analyst and the budget.

Transcript Highlights:

• and hospital budget hospital budgets and hospital budget review.<00:15:25.519><c> 9455</c> review. 9455
• </c> For fiscal year 27, hospital budgets For fiscal year 27, hospital budgets allows<00:15:50.639><c
• Their budget process, and comes down with their budget orders and decides how much of hospital budgets
• </c><01:09:22.239><c> Um</c> hospital budget review. Um hospital budget review.
• </c> budget process has not been completed. budget process has not been completed.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm still trying to work out some of my budget back of the budget cuts and otherwise, but it is far too
• So this is what portion of your total budget.
• </c> met revenue and we make budget met revenue and we make budget assumptions.<00:25:09.360><c> Uh</
• </c><00:29:19.279><c> I</c> budget. Uh and and what was this? I budget. Uh and and what was this?
• </c><00:30:29.120><c> unlike</c> t tough and tight budget season. unlike t tough and tight budget season

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Fiscal Committee met with replacement members noted at the start and took up one emergency item from the Department of Health and Human Services: approval to accept and expend $2 million to support SNAP recipients during the federal shutdown. Commissioner Lori Weaver and CFO Nathan White explained that USDA/FNS had notified the state it would not receive November SNAP funds, affecting about 74,000 recipients. The department said it activated a contingency plan to contract with the New Hampshire Food Bank to expand mobile food pantries, targeting SNAP households and prioritizing locations based on need, with evening and daytime access and outreach through mail, text, email, social media, partner organizations, and a shutdown webpage. Committee members asked about timing, locations, reimbursement, and whether the state would be repaid by the federal government. Department staff said the food bank would likely need about a week to mobilize once the contract was approved, and that the contract would be cost-reimbursement based, with faster turnaround than usual but not advance payment. White explained the money would come from excess Medicaid Enhancement Tax revenue from state fiscal year 2025, which can be used only for Medicaid purposes under state law and SB 249, allowing general funds to be shifted to the food bank contract. Members also asked about other affected programs; the department said WIC had funding through November 10, energy assistance was expected to continue through December, and school breakfast/free and reduced lunch were not impacted. Members discussed broader public outreach, including a possible PSA and use of the New Hampshire Food Bank’s network of 417 partners, and one member suggested religious leaders or the governor might be better positioned to make donation appeals. The committee then voted unanimously to adopt the item (motion by Senator Gray, second by Senator Waters). The meeting ended with notice of the next meeting on November 21 at 11:00 and a motion to adjourn, which was approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> to tell them what to do um their budget to tell them what to do um their budget is<00:04:08.680>
• At the time, what came out of the budget process was a budget that everyone knew was going to squeak
• But the operating costs are all in our budget, 100% in our budget, as general funds.
• I guess that's my question. in there we're making a budget that in there we're making a budget that budget
• The SRF program accounts for 43% of our budget. Air accounts for just 4% of our budget.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Department of Administrative Services presented an overview of its budget and operations, emphasizing that it is the lowest-spending agency in state government and that its general fund allocation has declined since 2019. Commissioner Arling House explained that DAS also handles back-office functions for several administratively attached boards, which has affected staffing and spending comparisons. He said the department’s current general fund spending is roughly split between retiree health and other operations, and that the presentation was based on adjusted authorized spending rather than the original budget figures. A major portion of the meeting focused on retiree health benefits and the long-term effort to control costs. Deputy Commissioner Cassie Keane described how the state moved from a projected deficit in retiree health to savings through a series of changes, including higher premium contributions, co-pay adjustments, and shifting Medicare retirees into Medicare Advantage arrangements to capture federal reimbursement. She said the state has about 12,500 retirees and spouses on the plan, with roughly 10,906 Medicare retirees and 1,580 non-Medicare retirees, and that the savings have depended heavily on federal funding and procurement decisions. She also noted that Medicare retirees pay Part B premiums and that the state has grandfathered older retirees from some premium contributions. Members asked about what the expenditures cover, why the state offers retiree health instead of simply giving retirees a payment to buy coverage themselves, and whether out-of-pocket costs changed under Medicare Advantage. Keane said the plan covers actual health claims or insurance premiums, that co-pays and maximum out-of-pocket limits remain in place, and that the state has no authority to change benefit details without legislative action. She explained that retiree health is a long-standing employee benefit that wraps around Medicare and is not collectively bargained in the usual sense, though its eligibility rules and cost-sharing have been tightened over time to better target the benefit to long-term state service. The discussion also covered vendor performance problems. Keane said Anthem recently won the contract back from Aetna, but its pharmacy subsidiary, Caroline, caused serious service disruptions. DAS responded by withholding payments, assessing more than $2 million in performance guarantees, and hiring a third-party auditor to review the pharmacy processes. The current contract runs through the end of calendar year 2026, and officials said they are watching federal Medicare Advantage reimbursement changes closely because future savings are uncertain.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because I think from last year, from this last budget cycle, we were able to increase the budget for
• and you can increase your budget as needed.
• When the state budget authority was set up, they were given that same unlimited budget authority.
• In the new budget, when the budget year started, Madam Chair and Senator, the budget year started July
• And then that brings up the fact that the state treasurer invests the budget money that we budget, and

Transcript Highlights:

• funding decisions are considered by the full budget committee.
• So this slide shows a current operating budget for the system.
• I would also add that it's part of our operating budget.
• Because when you look at the local budget, right, local operating budget, I think through there you get
• Like everything else, we have to balance budgets.

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee met to hear an overview of State University System finances from the Board of Governors and detailed budget presentations from Florida State University, the University of Central Florida, and the University of North Florida. The witnesses explained how university budgets are organized into fund categories such as education and general, contracts and grants, auxiliaries, local/designated funds, capital projects, and component units such as direct support organizations. They also described carry forward funds, the statutory reserve and spending-plan requirements, the PICO/HECO capital outlay process, and how universities use investment accounts, audits, and board oversight to manage restricted and unspent funds. The universities emphasized that most operating dollars are restricted to specific uses and that state support helps keep tuition low. Members asked about differences in funding levels among institutions, especially why FSU receives more funding than UCF despite lower enrollment. Officials said preeminence funding, performance funding, and special legislative appropriations explain much of the difference, and the Board of Governors noted that Florida now has four preeminent universities, with UCF nearing that status. Questions also focused on what happens to unspent carry forward money, how it is invested, and whether the Board of Governors or Legislature can require funds to be returned; officials said the money is invested conservatively, subject to board and audit oversight, and can roll forward under a detailed spending plan, though the Legislature can change funding levels. The committee also discussed capital projects, with members asking about delays, inflation, and whether more projects should be phased or funded faster; witnesses said PICO funds remain with the state until needed and are reimbursed as construction proceeds. A substantial portion of the discussion covered athletics, research, student fees, and endowments. The universities said athletics is generally expected to be self-supporting, though limited use of auxiliary or carry forward funds may be allowed for projects benefiting the broader student body. They also described the financial pressures from name, image, and likeness changes and new NCAA-related costs, and said institutions are planning for those changes now. On research, the universities explained sponsored research funding, indirect cost recovery, compliance obligations, and tech transfer, but did not provide specific commercialization revenue figures and said they would follow up. Members also asked about student fee increases, student input, counseling and wellness funding, and how housing costs affect affordability; the universities said student committees and boards review fees, and aid packaging is intended to keep student debt low. Endowments were described as being held in separate foundations/DSOs with independent investment committees and used mainly for scholarships, faculty support, and research.