Transcript Highlights:

• Funds are decreasing?
• Half of our funding for our programs is state-funded when federal funding is at risk.
• and Equity Fund, or TGI Wellness Fund for short.
• Improvement fund abolishment and sub fund conversion.
• . funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• , funds from the trust fund would go into those individual project funds as well.
• Fund.
• ) is using to fund. projects on their annual funding cycle, and it provides a funding cycle for engineering
• to the Land Grant fund, and it would supplement the. existing fund.
• The funding that we get includes three specific federal funds: Land and Water Conservation Fund, U.S.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Works Construction Fund to the Acequia and Community Ditch Infrastructure Fund, ACDIF for short.
• The recurring funding stream to this fund currently is $2.5 million.
• fund at EMNRD. ...the community infrastructure fund, and another one is the forestry fund at EMNRD,
• Yes, if there was more funding available, it would be great to fund up to the $74 million.
• Enough money in the fund.

Bills: SB193

Committee: House House Agriculture, Acequias And Water Resources

Summary: The committee heard Senate Bill 193, which would increase the recurring transfer from the Irrigation Works Construction Fund to the Acequia and Community Ditch Infrastructure Fund from $2.5 million to $5 million annually. The sponsor and supporters said the fund is the only recurring source for acequia infrastructure, helps complete projects efficiently through a planning/design and construction process, and has a strong completion rate. They also said the proposed increase reflects recent spending levels and growing need, especially after fires, flooding, and erosion damage in acequia communities. Public testimony was uniformly in support. Representatives of the New Mexico Acequia Association, local acequia and water users groups, conservation advocates, and community members described urgent infrastructure needs, the importance of acequias to agriculture and local economies, and the value of the fund’s application process and project readiness requirements. Several speakers said the fund helps communities recover from wildfire-related damage and prepare for future flooding and erosion. Committee members asked about how the money is structured, whether the bill would affect other earmarks or the irrigation fund balance, and how the $5 million figure was determined. Witnesses explained that the bill changes the recurring allocation only, that the acequia fund and other earmarks remain separate, and that the irrigation works fund has sufficient balance and recurring revenue to support the increase. They also noted that current annual spending has been in the $5 million to $6 million range and that the unmet statewide need is much larger. The committee voted do pass on SB 193, and the bill was approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've seen significant increases in funding for Alabama students' per-pupil funding by almost $1,100.
• On average in Alabama, we fund kids at about $7,500 per year. fund kids at about $7,500 per year.
• , English learner funding, and gifted funding.
• Option two is to establish a new student-weighted funding formula. ...weighted funding formula.
• funding, I think that it would be a great... funding.

Committee: House Education Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• : water conservation, water supply development revolving fund, and our state revolving fund, by county
• So through this fund, applicants can ask for up to $2 million in grant funding or $3 million in loan
• revolving fund which I'm going to call the rural fund because it's a whole lot easier and it makes a
• We've managed those funds.
• But if you look at the rural fund, because it's a state fund, that is a significantly easier fund for

Committee: Senate Senate Natural Resources Committee of Reference

Summary: The Natural Resources Committee convened for introductions of members, staff, interns, and pages, with members briefly noting their districts and roles. The committee’s only agenda item was a presentation from the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA) by Director Chelsea McGuire, who outlined WIFA’s mission and recent work financing water infrastructure across Arizona. McGuire described three major funding programs: the rural water supply development revolving fund, the water conservation grant fund, and the long-term water augmentation fund. She said WIFA has financed nearly $3 billion in water infrastructure over 30 years, awarded about $87.3 million through the rural fund, and allocated $211 million in conservation grants expected to save 6.6 million acre-feet of water. She also said WIFA is out of conservation money and requested continued state support, while noting the revolving funds remain stable even if federal funding declines. A large portion of the discussion focused on the long-term augmentation fund and its competitive solicitation process. McGuire said WIFA identified a projected 100,000 to 500,000 acre-foot supply gap in 10 to 15 years and selected seven projects for further due diligence after receiving 17 responses, including desalination, reuse, groundwater storage, and exchange-based projects involving private partners. Senators asked about public transparency, project timelines, costs, and the need for state funding; McGuire said public engagement will continue, the projects are intended to match the identified time frame, and state funding is needed both to pay for due diligence and to reduce project risk and cost. No votes or formal actions were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's our federal funding lapse, probably, and also our other funds lapse.
• It's our federal funding laps, probably, and also our other funds laps.
• or not funding.
• Funds are distributed using a federally approved interest state funding formula.
• It's back up one topic on the fund where we're skipping the fund.

Committee: House Budget

Summary: The committee heard the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services present its FY 2027 budget request, with Director Sarah Wilson and budget staff describing the department’s mission, major divisions, and the impact of federal funding shifts, especially the FMAP change that will shift costs to general revenue. Wilson emphasized prevention, public health infrastructure, workforce capacity, and data modernization, while several members praised the department’s responsiveness and cost-cutting efforts. The discussion repeatedly focused on lapses, excess authority, and the department’s stated practice of spending federal and other funds before general revenue where possible. Members asked detailed questions about local public health agency support, nutrition programs, rural health and primary care, newborn screening, the state public health lab, and the department’s use of flexibility and reallocations. There was extended discussion of substance use disorder funding: the department explained that some funding is being reduced in its own budget because transfer authority is being added for the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Corrections, while some other SUD-related lines are actual reductions. Members also questioned tobacco prevention and cessation cuts, maternal and infant health programs, fetal infant mortality review, and minority health initiatives, with staff explaining program purposes and noting that some reductions were tied to excess authority or to moving programs to other departments. The committee also reviewed specific operational items such as the Health Initiatives Fund transfer, debt offset escrow for loan repayment defaults, donated funds authority, emergency preparedness, environmental health, health informatics, HIV/STI/hepatitis services, local public health incentives, and the COVID/ARPA authority reductions. Several members requested follow-up information on vacancies, lapse trends, grant spending plans, and program details. No final vote or formal action was taken in the portion provided; the chair recessed briefly and the hearing continued with additional budget testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• capture the BHSA funds.
• No, historically it's been General Fund. So, General Fund. So is this proposed...
• General Fund?
• and special fund. $13.3 million, both General Fund and special fund.
• using ADAP funding and opioid settlement funds to fund HIV, hepatitis, STI, and overdose prevention,

Transcript Highlights:

• Training Trust Fund.
• program fund.
• So can these funds be used as matching funds for the federal side of it?
• Really, the point of the bill is to provide funds for matching federal funds.
• , 20% to the state road fund, 15% to the TPF, and 15% to the trust fund.

Summary: The committee first received a detailed New Mexico DOT District 5 presentation from Rhonda Lopez. She reviewed District 5’s budget, staffing vacancies, completed and ongoing special appropriations from 2020 through 2025, active construction projects, maintenance work, STIP and local government funding, and equipment needs. Members asked about a guardrail issue near U.S. 64, the status of the 5% local match for Transportation Project Fund projects, and the New Mexico 371/Navajo Route 36 intersection; DOT said the match agreements were in place or waived where eligible, and that the Navajo Nation funding agreement was nearly finalized. The chair then moved the agenda to bills before finishing the remaining presentations later. House Bill 270, dealing with contributions to apprenticeship and training programs on public works projects, was presented by Rep. Borrego as a follow-up to the 2024 workforce development and apprenticeship trust fund law. The bill would remove an exclusion for street, highway, bridge, road, utility, and maintenance contracts and require contributions unless a trade classification has no approved apprenticeship program. Associated Contractors and the Asphalt Pavement Association opposed the bill, arguing it would raise road project costs and duplicate existing training programs. Members raised concerns about notice, added costs, and whether contractors with existing programs would be paying twice. A motion to table failed on a tie vote, and a later motion to pass also failed on a tie vote, leaving the bill in committee and available for reconsideration. Ranking Member Brown then presented House Bill 322, which would create a transportation trust fund and transportation program fund, with a planned distribution beginning in 2029, including a 5% use for federal matching funds. The bill would also dedicate a portion of the gross receipts tax on electricity and redirect part of the motor vehicle excise tax to grow the fund. Associated Contractors and the Asphalt Pavement Association supported the concept, saying it would help sustain DOT and address the state’s road maintenance gap. Members questioned the electricity tax component, its effect on ratepayers and data centers, the interaction with SB 2 and bond financing, and how projects would be prioritized. A motion to pass failed on a tie vote, and the ranking member suggested the bill could be reconsidered with an amendment removing the electricity portion. The committee then heard a District 4 DOT presentation from assistant district engineer Cruz Sudoste, covering the district’s geography, budget, staffing, completed and active projects, STIP and local government programs, and equipment replacement needs. Members asked about school district uses of transportation project funds and the impact of aging equipment on repair costs. The presentation concluded without any vote or other action on the district report.

Transcript Highlights:

• funds.
• with no General Fund impact.
• This includes $626 million of general fund, $2.2 billion of special funds.
• State operations funds are the resources to administer this fund. B 1487.
• And then our state ops funds are the resources to administer this fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• funds, and other funds.
• funds, and other funds.
• funds, and other funds.
• funds, and other funds.
• Turnpike funds, Highway funds, and other funds.

Summary: The committee met with New Hampshire DOT Commissioner Bill Cass and Finance Director Danielle Shandra to review the agency’s FY 2026 budget. Cass gave a high-level overview of DOT’s mission, organization, funding structure, and staffing trends, noting the agency has about 650 employees across five divisions. He said the Governor’s recommended FY 2026 budget totals $95.99 million, essentially flat from FY 2025, with funding primarily from Turnpike funds, Highway funds, federal sources, and a small General Fund share for non-highway units. Members asked about how Turnpike and Highway funds are treated in state accounting, and DOT explained that while they are enterprise funds restricted to their purposes, they are considered unrestricted from the statewide perspective and are appropriated through the budget process. A major topic was staffing and budget targets. DOT said its full-time staffing level has remained relatively flat since 2014 even as vehicle miles traveled increased and vacancies rose. To meet budget targets, the department unfunded seven permanent positions and nine temporary full-time positions, and later noted additional reductions in Finance, including the elimination of two full-time positions, reduced print shop equipment purchases, and deeper cuts to overtime, temporary help, equipment, and supplies in FY 2027. DOT also explained that it shifted funding for one unmanned aerial system position from General Funds to Highway Funds, saying the change was workable because the position supports highway-related work and federal-aid-eligible activities. Members asked for clarification on the state transit operating match, and DOT explained that the Legislature had previously provided about $1.8 million annually in General Funds to help local transit agencies meet federal match requirements, but that funding was not included in this budget. DOT said that could reduce the ability to draw down some federal transit funds, though the impact may not be immediate because those funds can be used over several years. The department also described its unmanned aerial system program, saying it has been used for about five years for mapping, survey work, construction oversight, and storm damage assessment, and that it now has about five drones and two full-time positions supporting the program. DOT said it is expanding cross-training so more employees can operate drones without adding positions. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Transformation funds.
• General Fund to the Public Education Reform Fund.
• That funding, it's still general fund, but non-recurring.
• We've already directed funds to the public education reform fund.
• Now, less funds are even... Converting to the school fund, the education reform fund.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• . funding. funding.
• The fund grows uh at a subst grows fund.
• </c> school fund. school fund.
• </c> fund over time. fund over time.
• There are plenty of other funds from the general fund for compensatory funding to address particular

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• But again, there's three things that this funding funds.
• sources such as federal funds as well as local funds.
• Fund.
• be 100% funded by the General Fund.
• funds.

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• Funding these transfers come from available fund balances and funding made available from proposition
• that plan funds.
• additional funds.
• One is that the funding does maintain funding, albeit from a different fund source, for those programs
• Affordable Drinking Water Fund, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and other general funds related to the

Transcript Highlights:

• the the Texas Mobility Fund, and alternative transportation funding options.
• Highway Fund.
• that we're funded, is that we fund it on a population basis or we fund it by, you know, you've got a
• Also, going back to your funding on the slide two there, with your federal fund. funds being 30 percent
• Those funds are.

Committee: House S/C on Transportation Funding

Transcript Highlights:

• We still are working on getting funding for behavioral health capital fund, primary care capital fund
• Two funds: The Opportunity Enterprise Revolving Fund and the Housing Development Revolving Fund.
• You know, a full-time student could get at-risk funding, special education funding, bilingual Funding
• funding for CTE.
• funding.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• You can see again the same breakdown long term investment funds, our pension funds, the current fund
• funds.
• , our pension funds, and other public funds.
• Uh, and then next, I'll go ahead, um, fund by fund.
• Next fund is P.

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• But again, there's three things that this funding funds.
• sources such as federal funds as well as local funds.
• Fund.
• be 100% funded by the General Fund.
• funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• So again, back to the general fund funding issues that you've got.
• The general fund has a reserve fund of $150 million.
• fund.
• over their funds.
• There will be additional O&M funds as well as funds for the Innovation Center.

Transcript Highlights:

• We believe in the long-term investments of our funding formula, as well as the stability and the funding
• That model of necessary small schools, which is not a district funding model but a school's funding model
• The state fully funded the LCFF in 2018-19 and has annually... ...fully funded the LCFF in 2018-19 and
• grant funding.
• with federal ESSA funding and have been continued with these LREBG funds.