Transcript Highlights:

• That said, we have a lot of education trust funds, a lot of highway funds, turnpike funds, federal funds
• </c> trust funds a lot of Highway funds trust funds a lot of Highway funds Turnpike<00:16:03.199><c>
• funds federal funds restricted Turnpike funds federal funds restricted accounts<00:16:06.000><c> fishing
• </c> funds are very similar to General funds funds are very similar to General funds from<00:16:19.199
• of the Education Trust Fund, the Highway Fund, and then the Fish and Game Fund.

Summary: The meeting was an introductory House Finance Division Two session focused on committee procedures, staffing, and the upcoming budget process. Mickey Landrian, the division analyst, introduced himself and explained that the subcommittee operates more informally than the full committee, does not hold executive sessions or public hearings itself, and makes recommendations back to House Finance. Members were told that public hearings on legislation occur in the full committee, while Division Two will hold work sessions and vote on recommendations such as ought to pass, retain, or ITL. The chair also welcomed new members and a new clerk, and noted that meetings will be recorded and streamed, with microphones required for audio capture. A substantial portion of the meeting covered the division’s workload and schedule. Landrian outlined the agencies assigned to Division Two, including Safety, Fish and Game, Transportation, Education, the Lottery Commission, Police Standards and Training, the University System, and the Community College System. He explained the different fund types the division will handle, especially Education Trust Fund, Highway Fund, and Fish and Game Fund, and reviewed reference materials distributed to members, including agency budget requests, prior recommendation tracking sheets, and surplus statements. He emphasized that the agency budget requests and related handouts are available online and useful for members to review before budget work begins. Members discussed the compressed timeline for the session, with a target date of March 26 for completing Division Two recommendations. Landrian said only a few bills had been referred to Finance so far, none yet to Division Two, but that more bills and amendments were expected, including many amendments to House Bill 2. He noted that the committee would need to move efficiently and frontload meetings. Representative Papich added that Fish and Game may require closer scrutiny than in prior years because of its push for direct general fund appropriations, and members also discussed the importance of getting preliminary budget documents before the governor’s budget is finalized. No votes were taken and no formal actions were reported beyond the procedural overview and distribution of materials.

Transcript Highlights:

• This supplemental includes funding, one-time funding from the Miscellaneous Revenue Fund, to supplement
• Revenue Fund. $100,000 from their water management fund to the Miscellaneous Revenue Fund in the Soil
• The federal funds that those funds serve as a match for exist in the OEMR federal fund ongoing appropriation
• , $11,837,100 from dedicated funds, and $32,601,700 from federal funds. $11,837,100 from dedicated funds
• funds was $196,000.

Summary: The joint Senate Finance and House Appropriations committee heard a series of budget presentations and acted on several FY 2026 and FY 2027 items. Noah Peterson reviewed the General Fund Daily Update, noting large FY 2026 supplemental actions for Medicaid and Corrections that reduced the estimated ending balance, and a FY 2027 outlook that still had room for remaining work. He also flagged several policy bills with fiscal impacts, including county jail per diem changes, a state police bill, and a health and welfare board/position bill. Janet Jessup then walked the committee through Department of Environmental Quality and Soil and Water Conservation actions. The committee approved adding four FTP for DEQ’s solid waste regulatory program and adopted related language transferring $400,000 from the hazardous waste emergency fund to support the new solid waste regulatory fund. It also approved a CREP supplemental for the Soil and Water Conservation Commission and then voted to move the commission from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Water Resources, including a corresponding reduction in Agriculture and an addition in Water Resources. The committee adopted language to align the new budget structure and approved a one-time $390,000 restoration in the Department of Water Resources to avoid reducing stream-gauging and water-monitoring services. The committee next considered the consolidation of the Office of Species Conservation and the Office of Energy and Mineral Resources into a new Office of Species, Mineral, and Energy Coordination. It approved reductions to the two existing offices and then debated competing motions for the new office. The substitute motion to cut four FTP and reduce spending more deeply failed, while the original motion to reduce two FTP and preserve more staffing for nuclear and mining coordination passed. Members and the agency administrator argued that Idaho needs a stronger “one-stop shop” for nuclear and mining projects, while others emphasized following the policy bill moving through the legislature and capturing consolidation savings. The committee also approved a DOPL budget item for replacement vehicles and IT hardware. Most motions passed with do-pass recommendations, and the committee announced it would meet again the next day; Senate Finance was noted as on hold, while House Appropriations would continue after adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Half of their funding is special funds, mostly fish and game preservation funds, which are paid for by
• Fund in the state budget.
• Fund.
• the Cannabis Control Fund to the Cannabis Tax Fund.
• The Cannabis Tax Control Fund is headed towards a negative fund balance in 2627.

Transcript Highlights:

• fund, Allocations to allow the Texas Water Fund to distribute money to the flood infrastructure fund
• fund, allocations to allow the Texas Water Fund to distribute money to the flood infrastructure fund
• the Texas Water Fund.
• Water Fund.
• Fund.

Bills: HB16 , HB1618 , HB2692 , HB2712 , HB2970 , HB3609 , HB3628 , HB16

Committee: House Natural Resources

Keywords: water infrastructure, Texas Water Development Board, financial assistance, water supply projects, rural municipalities, water access assessment, aquifer storage, Edwards Aquifer, water injection, environmental regulations, groundwater management, San Antonio River, pollution control, flood management, water quality, conservation district, bonds, utility rates, ratemaking, water services

Transcript Highlights:

• to the General Fund.
• So this fund needs to pay back $31 million to the General Fund.
• We shifted the funds back from the Legacy Fund into the General Fund as of last Friday.
• It just was a little different mix of which fund it went into: the General Fund or the Legacy Fund.
• , or the Historical Society funded, or the Humanities Center funded.

Committee: House Legacy Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• , special funds from the state funds.
• So there are funds in there.
• , special funds from the state funds.
• So there are funds in there.
• the federal match funding.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• Depending on available funding, the amount of funding that the Legislature provides for enrollment growth
• You talked about, you know, the funding cap and funding above that.
• One thing I would note, however, is those are one-time funds, not ongoing funds.
• for those funds.
• any funding for life safety projects, up to 35% of the remaining funds go toward growth projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• $1.5 billion from the general fund to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to support fire prevention,
• Which is the general fund, rather than funding it from what everybody recognizes is a temporary funding
• To fund an essential service, particularly an essential safety service, from a temporary Funding from
• a temporary fund rather than from a general fund is an architectural decision the Governor is making
• Not general fund: the environmental license plate fee, the waste discharge permit fund, etc.

Transcript Highlights:

• You can see the general fund, other funds, and the total pool for each agency.
• funds.
• other funds?
• Fund appropriation.
• So we do not have funding to fund Highway 85 from the interstate to 200.

Summary: The Budget Section approved the March 18 minutes and received an OMB update showing the general fund is still ahead of the budgeted starting point, but revenues through May are now about $76 million below the legislative forecast, driven mainly by individual income tax and sales tax shortfalls. OMB also reported the budget stabilization fund is above its cap, meaning a transfer to the general fund is expected, and reviewed oil price/production assumptions, noting continued volatility. Members asked about the income tax netting process, the sales tax decline, oil price discounts/premiums, natural gas taxation, and when the executive branch would present its revenue forecast. The committee then acted on several Emergency Commission requests. It approved, as a group, requests for federal mine reclamation funds for the Public Service Commission, an additional criminal investigator FTE and funding for the Attorney General’s office, and a DPI transfer for bridge software costs. It separately approved DPI request 2164 for $500,000 to support the food vendor program after debate over whether the program’s savings were known and whether the money was simply a pass-through. OMB also reported on federal grants, fiscal irregularities, tobacco settlement proceeds, budget guidelines for agencies, FTE pool usage, vacancy savings, and the DAPL settlement, noting the settlement funds had been deposited and that a deficiency appropriation may be needed later to cover remaining accrued interest. Tax Commissioner Brian Kroshus presented on the primary residence credit program, saying participation has grown sharply and that the current biennium will likely need about $431 million, roughly $22 million above the appropriation. He explained how the credit interacts with homestead and disabled veteran benefits, how the 3% property tax cap works, and why county valuations and mill rates vary. The committee also received a Legacy Fund/Budget Stabilization Fund report showing strong returns, and DOT Director Ron Henke received approval for two Flex Fund highway projects on ND 49 and ND 31. Henke also explained remaining Highway 85 funding and said the department is exploring uses for leftover state dollars. Finally, the Department of Mineral Resources reported on abandoned well plugging and site restoration, noting North Dakota remains in relatively strong shape compared with other states, and DPI began a presentation on gap funding tied to the 3% levy cap, reporting 24 districts received $1.8 million in the first year and projecting higher future needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• One-time funding versus ongoing funding.
• if funding will between obligating and expending funds for programs without knowing if funding will
• Funding.
• Let's stay on HAP funding. Doesn't HAP work with Homekey funding?
• funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• to fund Cal Fire.
• . restore those fundings.
• the intent to fund HAP.
• We are very appreciative of the HAP funding and Prop 36 funding in particular.
• should be funded through general fund or other non-rate-payer sources.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2019, the Legislature added $20 million to the Equal Access Fund as other funding sources waned.
• All the organizations that are funded by the Equal Access Fund also receive IOLTA funding. Okay.
• Is this trust fund the same trust fund that we were talking about in the other hearing?
• appellate court trust fund?
• know we need to fund.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation heard presentations on the Office of the State Public Defender, civil legal aid funding, and Judicial Branch operations. The State Public Defender requested permanent funding for positions that had been temporarily funded to implement the Racial Justice Act, explaining that the workload has grown substantially through retroactive capital-case briefing, habeas proceedings, data requests, and related statistical analysis. She also presented findings from a public defense workload and staffing report showing that California’s county-based public defense system is under-resourced, with too few attorneys, investigators, and support staff, especially in rural counties, and that statewide standards and funding are lacking. Committee members asked about the scope of racial bias claims, the impact of collaborative courts and Prop. 36, and the need for statewide cost estimates and phased funding options. The committee then heard from legal aid advocates and a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in support of increased civil legal aid funding. Witnesses described the Equal Access Fund, homelessness prevention services, health care access, and immigration detention defense as cost-effective ways to prevent evictions, stabilize families, and reduce downstream public costs. They requested a $50 million increase to the Equal Access Fund, $20 million to restart homelessness prevention services, and $10 million for health care access work, along with additional targeted investments from the California Access to Justice Commission. Testimony emphasized the severe shortage of legal aid attorneys, the high demand for immigration representation, and the role of legal aid in domestic violence, housing, and family law matters. Senators asked for more information on service locations, outreach, funding losses, and how the requested amounts were calculated. In the Judicial Branch overview, Judicial Council and trial court representatives supported the Governor’s proposed budget, including a $70 million increase for trial court operations, $21.7 million for employee health and retirement costs, and funding for appellate counsel and case processing. They said the money is needed to offset inflation, supply chain costs, and staffing pressures, and to preserve access to justice. Senators pressed the branch and Department of Finance on interpreter shortages, midyear funding flexibility, courthouse facilities needs, and judgeship needs in inland counties. Finance officials said they were aware of the broader facilities backlog, and the committee requested follow-up information on the full capital and maintenance needs, interpreter funding, and updated judgeship and workload data. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Special funds can be tools to help you across your budget. They can loan to the general fund.
• They can absorb expenditures that historically have been funded by the general fund.
• Special funds can be tools to help you across your budget. It can loan to the general fund.
• They can absorb expenditures that historically have been funded by the general fund.
• in terms of spending funding.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate, Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation opened its first hearing on the governor’s natural resources budget with Secretary Wade Crowfoot of the Natural Resources Agency. Crowfoot reviewed California’s recent climate and environmental challenges—drought, wildfire, heat, sea level rise, and federal uncertainty—and highlighted progress on clean energy, zero-emission vehicles, wildfire resilience, water management, coastal planning, conservation, tribal land return, and streamlined project delivery. Members praised his engagement and the administration’s work with tribes, and Crowfoot emphasized that the administration is focused on finishing major projects, improving nature-based solutions, and considering whether some temporary streamlining measures should be codified. He also discussed the Mediterranean Climate Action Partnership and said the state is working with other Mediterranean-climate governments on wildfire, drought, and heat response. Members and the LAO then focused on budget conditions and priorities. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state budget remains precarious despite strong revenues, with the governor’s proposal relying on borrowing and reserves and leaving large out-year deficits unresolved. The LAO urged a high bar for new spending, especially in a deficit environment, and recommended prioritizing immediate health and safety needs, avoiding new ongoing commitments, and thinking carefully about special funds. On Proposition 4, the LAO said the administration’s approach generally appeared reasonable and consistent with the bond, but noted implementation has been slow and that the Legislature may want to use appropriations language to shape broad programs such as home hardening, outdoor recreation, and climate education. The chair stressed that climate and environmental funds should be used for their intended purposes and that wildfire spending should shift more toward community hardening and home protection. The hearing then turned to water resilience and Proposition 4 spending. Department of Finance and department staff outlined the bond’s water-related funding for safe drinking water, drought, flood, water recycling, stormwater, groundwater management, dam safety, and the State Water Project. Members pressed for details on how funds would be prioritized, how grants would reach disadvantaged communities, and how the state would track the bond’s 40% target for vulnerable communities. Staff said new tools and reporting systems are being used to monitor allocations, and that AB 107 and related changes should speed up grant implementation by reducing redundant regulatory steps. The committee also discussed dam safety needs, State Water Project repairs, groundwater implementation grants, and the risk of relying on uncertain future revenues from the Salton Sea lithium tax. No votes were taken, and the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• The funding was sent to them in September, and the funding came to us in July.
• We would like the General Fund to keep funding them, or keep funding the grants for... Here we go.
• And once we do that, the statute would allow us to use the 988 fund to fund us.
• I know the General Fund—I get it, we can’t turn to the General Fund. I get that.
• County-funded program.

Summary: The subcommittee heard budget and policy updates from the Department of State Hospitals, the Commission for Behavioral Health, and the Department of Health Care Services. DSH described its proposed 2026-27 budget of $3.2 billion, including savings tied to IST solutions, higher patient-driven operating costs, and a small increase in caseload projections. Officials said the department has met court-ordered IST treatment benchmarks, with wait times reduced from a pandemic peak of 1,953 pending placements to about 250, and average treatment initiation now around five days. Members asked about the effects of Proposition 36 and SB 1323, rising outside hospitalization costs, Medicare enrollment, and whether IST solution funding was being overbudgeted; DSH said referrals are slightly down overall, aging and medically complex patients are driving outside care costs, and the IST solution savings reflect slower-than-expected program activation rather than a service gap. The department also outlined proposed funding for CONREP cost increases, a new county-by-county LPS bed allocation model, electrical infrastructure upgrades at Napa and Patton, SB 380 transitional housing feasibility work, and additional dental staffing and space at Metropolitan and Patton. The Commission for Behavioral Health reviewed its role in the Behavioral Health Services Act transition and its new Innovation Partnership Fund. Staff said the commission is shifting from county-level innovation oversight to a statewide grant strategy, with the first $20 million RFA drawing strong interest and awards expected in mid-June. Members asked how “innovation” would be defined, whether grants could be renewed after the initial three-year contracts, and how the state would ensure the money supports real service delivery rather than general outreach or training. The commission also sought a liquidation deadline extension for the Alcove youth drop-in center grants so remaining funds can be spent before they revert, allowing sites to finish implementation and support the final evaluation. DHCS provided an overview of CalAIM and BH Connect implementation, including updated specialty mental health access criteria, new ASAM-based substance use treatment standards, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation, and transitional rent services. The department also addressed BHSA implementation, saying it does not track specific local program cuts but will monitor county three-year plans, performance measures, and outcomes as counties shift to the new funding structure. On H.R. 1, DHCS said it is preparing outreach, eligibility simplification, and exemption strategies to reduce Medi-Cal coverage losses, including clinic navigators, a statewide outreach campaign, and possible employment supports through a future waiver. The department also reported that BH-CHIP bond funds have supported 437 infrastructure projects, creating 546 facilities and more than 9,500 residential beds, with additional outpatient capacity and tribal investments. Finally, DHCS outlined a proposed 988 trailer bill to create a statewide designation process for 988 centers and mobile crisis teams, with implementation no earlier than October 1, 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• and competitive funds.
• here at the Title funds.
• funding on federal funds have to do with funding on federal funds on<00:15:54.399><c> other</c><00:15
• Federal funding is if Federal fundings Federal funding is going<00:48:34.640><c> to</c><00:48:34.800
• </c><01:48:10.440><c> like</c><01:48:10.639><c> a</c> funds like uh and federal funds like a funds like

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> funding in the future. funding in the future.
• . fund. fund.
• </c> school fund task force. school fund task force.
• <00:54:36.079><c> that</c><00:54:36.319><c> supports</c> fund, which is a fund that supports fund, which
• The permanent school trust fund is the students' trust fund.

Bills: HF3900

Committee: House Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• included funding for a state-funded study as well.
• Included funding for a state-funded study as well. Yeah.
• What is the one-time funding?
• our current grant funding.
• So yes, I completely agree: sufficient ongoing funding is key, but funding isn't enough.

Transcript Highlights:

• rounds of funding.
• We used our discretionary funding to fund.
• with a combination of General Funds and federal funds.
• with a combination of general funds and federal funds.
• The funding for those funds is to be expended by 2028.

Summary: The hearing opened with remarks from the chair and members about recent federal cuts to public health, mental health, family planning, and Title X funding, with strong concern about the impact on California programs and providers. The committee then turned to the Department of State Hospitals, which presented its 2025-26 budget proposal of $3.4 billion, including new positions, capital improvements, and funding tied to increased patient costs and incompetent-to-stand-trial services. DSH reported major progress in reducing the IST waitlist and wait times, said it had met the court’s 28-day treatment benchmark for those without extenuating circumstances, and described workforce recruitment and retention efforts such as residency programs, fellowships, outreach, and hiring streamlining. Members asked about future IST referral trends, SB 1323’s effect on diversion and community treatment, and workforce lessons in high-cost regions; public comment urged reconsideration of county IST growth cap methodology in light of new criminal justice initiatives. The committee next received an informational overview of Proposition 1 and its changes to behavioral health funding and governance. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that Prop. 1 restructured county MHSA funding buckets, expanded the Commission for Behavioral Health, shifted prevention and early intervention responsibilities, and authorized a $6.4 billion bond, including $4.4 billion for behavioral health facilities through BHCIP. DHCS said it had released guidance for county integrated plans and was receiving extensive public comment. Members focused on BHCIP application requirements, especially letters of support and tribal projects, and raised concerns about whether DHCS’s implementation matched statutory intent. DHCS said it had authority to set application requirements and that tribal entities were treated differently because of sovereignty and funding structure. DHCS then updated the committee on BHCIP, the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program, and related bond implementation. The department said BHCIP had awarded about $1.7 billion across five rounds, with more than 130 projects and 223 distinct facilities funded, and that it was preparing to award the new bond funds after receiving nearly $8 billion in applications. The LAO’s assessment found that more than half of awards served at least 80% Medi-Cal enrollees, but also raised concerns that the regional allocation model could reinforce inequities, that the program had not sufficiently addressed the highest-need regions such as the southern San Joaquin Valley, and that smaller counties and less launch-ready applicants faced barriers. For bridge housing, DHCS said more than $1.1 billion had been awarded, serving over 5,000 people and supporting more than 2,000 operational beds, but the Governor’s budget proposes to eliminate Round 4 funding as the administration weighs other statewide investments and Proposition 1 implementation workload. Public commenters and members urged more accountability, better regional equity, stronger labor and community involvement, and caution about funding for for-profit psychiatric facilities. Finally, the committee heard on the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative. CalHHS and DHCS described CYBHI as a broad prevention- and equity-focused effort with more than 1,300 organizations funded, over $2.1 billion awarded, and multiple work streams spanning schools, community programs, workforce, and digital supports. DHCS highlighted school-based services, the fee schedule rollout, and digital platforms BrightLife Kids and Soluna, which it said are reaching users statewide and providing low-barrier access to coaching and support. Members and public commenters raised concerns about delays in school fee schedule implementation, the large share of funding going to digital tools, the need for more in-person services, and whether the initiative is sufficiently tracking outcomes and equity impacts. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• for in different funds, also a local revenue subfund of the general fund, and a capital projects fund
• for in different funds, also a local revenue subfund of the general fund and a capital projects fund
• , additional funding for special education, additional funding for transportation.
• we had problems with funding.
• include federal funding.

Summary: The House Education Committee heard public testimony on three bills focused on school district finances and education ombuds confidentiality. House Bill 2593, an OSPI request, would require school districts to maintain minimum general fund balances beginning in the 2031 school year, with OSPI calculating district-specific amounts and adopting rules. It would also require monthly financial reporting starting in 2028-29 and allow OSPI to withhold apportionment for late reporting or require repayment plans if districts fall below the minimum. Supporters, including OSPI and the prime sponsor, said the bill is intended to prevent districts from reaching binding financial conditions and to provide earlier intervention; opponents from WASDA, rural districts, and school boards argued it would reduce local control, create cash-flow problems, and impose rigid limits that do not fit different district circumstances. Several witnesses also raised concerns about the proposed maximum fund balance and the impact on districts with enrollment volatility, federal impact aid, or special project savings needs. The committee also heard House Bill 2551, which would let school districts with estimated ending fund balances at or below 3% of revenues seek OSPI approval to sell real property before entering binding financial conditions, with proceeds used to restore solvency rather than being deposited into capital or debt service funds. The prime sponsor and Tacoma School District testified that the bill would give districts flexibility to avoid deeper fiscal distress, while OSPI said it supported the concept but suggested a higher threshold and broader minimum fund balance policy. Testimony in opposition or concern focused on the risk of selling appreciating assets, the possibility of one-time sales being used to solve ongoing budget problems, and the need for stronger state funding rather than asset liquidation. The committee also heard House Bill 2440, which would make identifying information in Office of Education Ombuds complaint records confidential, allow limited disclosure by consent or under legislative or gubernatorial subpoena, and require release of a complainant’s own records with redactions; the bill was supported by the ombuds office and its sponsor as a way to protect complainants and encourage reporting. No votes or executive actions were taken. The committee closed the public hearings after hearing testimony and recorded sign-ins, and the chair noted that the bills could be eligible for executive action beginning the following Monday.

Transcript Highlights:

• funding.
• funding.
• funding.
• Projects Fund.
• funding this year.

Bills: SB234 , SB210 , SB243 , SB244 , SM16 , HB8

Committee: Senate House Education

Summary: The Senate Education Committee began by announcing that SB 210 would be rolled over to Friday and would not be heard. The committee then returned to SB 234, which would provide foster child school transportation funding statewide rather than only for Albuquerque Public Schools. Members adopted an amendment striking the APS-only language and making the bill statewide after testimony from the sponsor, PED, and others that foster youth transportation is a growing issue and should have its own funding stream. The committee discussed how the money might be distributed and whether the $1.2 million appropriation would be sufficient, then voted do pass on SB 234 as amended. The committee next heard HB 8, which creates a Higher Education Major Projects Fund for large capital projects that are difficult to fund through existing capital outlay processes. Testimony from the sponsor, LFC, HED, and university representatives explained that the bill would support projects such as the UNM School of Medicine, an NMSU multidisciplinary building, student housing, student life projects, and certain Division I athletic facilities, while requiring design readiness, institutional matches, and legislative oversight. Several senators raised concerns about the clarity of the prioritization process, the Division I-only athletics language, the recurring nature of future funding, and the relationship to other capital funding streams, but the committee ultimately voted do pass on HB 8. The committee then considered SB 243 and SB 244, nearly identical bills for UNM and NMSU that would each appropriate $5 million for student health, student support, nutrition, travel, scholarships, and other athletic department needs. Athletic directors testified that conference realignment, higher travel costs, nutrition demands, and new revenue-sharing/NIL obligations have increased expenses, and sponsors said the bills were intended as one-time appropriations. Some senators questioned whether the requests should be recurring or funded through university revenue rather than the state, but both bills received do pass recommendations. Finally, the committee heard SM 16, as amended, which asks HED to convene a task force to study parenting students in higher education and recommend ways to collect data and improve support. Supporters said better data is needed to understand barriers such as child care and transportation, and the memorial passed with a do pass recommendation. The committee then adjourned until Friday morning.