Transcript Highlights:

• It is not the primary goal for the program. It is not the primary goal for the program.
• Cap is half of this program, and if we go above the cap, we're failing 50% of the program.
• As far as the direct benefit, it depends on the program. There are a number of programs.
• Thank you. ...programs and the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program.
• Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, and the transit intercity capital program.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee and Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 held a joint hearing on CARB’s proposed amendments to the cap-and-invest regulations. Opening remarks from senators emphasized the 2025 reauthorization of the program through AB 1207 and SB 840, and focused on whether CARB’s April revisions faithfully implement legislative intent while balancing climate ambition, affordability, leakage prevention, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). Several senators raised concerns that the proposal could reduce GGRF revenues, weaken funding for transit, affordable housing, wildfire prevention, drinking water, and other community programs, and shift too much support toward industry. Others stressed the need to protect businesses and consumers from higher costs and to avoid leakage and refinery closures. Senator Cortese’s statement, read into the record, warned that the proposal could jeopardize transportation funding commitments. CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez said the amendments respond to legislative direction and public comment, and described four main changes: increased electric bill credits, a larger manufacturing decarbonization incentive (MDI), additional compliance support for industry, and removal of post-2030 allowance allocations from the current rulemaking. She said the proposal keeps the cap aligned with 2030 and 2045 targets, maintains affordability protections, and is intended to reduce emissions while minimizing leakage and supporting in-state jobs. CARB staff also said the MDI would have guardrails, require applications and reporting, and be tied to emissions-reducing facility upgrades. The Department of Finance explained that GGRF revenue estimates are highly uncertain and are updated periodically based on auction data. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the amendments are significant and could materially affect environmental ambition, industry support, utility credits, and GGRF revenues. LAO highlighted that the MDI could add allowances above the cap, potentially reducing certainty that 2030 targets will be met, and noted that the proposal appears to shift more allowances to industry and fewer to GGRF than current regulations. LAO also said the proposed GGRF estimate of about $8 billion through the decade could be insufficient to fully fund lower-priority tiers of programs. In questioning, senators pressed CARB on whether the proposal would raise consumer costs, whether free allowances or MDI funds would actually lower prices at the pump, how leakage is measured, and whether the Legislature’s budget assumptions would need to be revised before final action. No votes were taken during the hearing; the discussion was informational and focused on questioning CARB and fiscal staff ahead of the board’s planned May 28 consideration of the amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a mentoring program.
• the adult education program.
• The specific categorical programs include the adult education program, Extended Opportunity Programs
• . workforce Pell Grant Program.
• , and the program expands upon the federal Pell Grant program, but has some key differences.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard May Revision proposals covering higher education, including the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the University of California, California Community Colleges, the California Student Aid Commission, UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and trailer bill reporting changes. For the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the administration proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan taken to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to adjust for a pending legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about an interest-free loan under Proposition 26. Senators asked about whether the $10 million would cover the litigation and about the estimated $245,000 in interest savings. For UC, the May Revision maintained the Governor’s ongoing support and included budget language requiring campuses to grow by 2,968 California undergraduates in 2026-27. UC also sought $1.5 million in one-time General Fund support for the First Star foster youth program. UC described strong outcomes for the UCLA program, while the LAO recommended rejecting the new spending because UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and because the need for new state funding was not clear. Senators debated whether the proposal duplicated existing services and discussed the program’s reported college-going and completion rates. The committee also heard a request for $1 million ongoing General Fund for UC College of the Law, San Francisco, to maintain campus safety services; the college described its shared-campus model and public-interest mission, while the LAO noted the college was also raising tuition and that the proposal would maintain, rather than expand, current security spending. The committee then reviewed community college proposals. Finance outlined a larger May Revision package centered on a 4.31% SCFF COLA, enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, a one-time Adult Learner Demonstration Project allocation, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time items. The Chancellor’s Office supported the package but asked for more enrollment growth funding, a higher growth rate, and additional policy changes. The LAO recommended at least funding the statutory 2.87% COLA, then considering whether to redirect remaining funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time priorities; it recommended rejecting the Adult Learner Demonstration Project. Senators questioned the use of the discretionary COLA to cover paid pregnancy disability leave, the impact on hold harmless and basic aid districts, and whether the state should instead create a separate categorical. The Chancellor’s Office and Finance said the COLA approach was intended to provide flexibility, though Finance said it was open to further discussion about districts that would not receive direct funding. For student aid, Finance described May Revision changes to Cal Grant and the Middle Class Scholarship, including a one-time reduction tied to lower estimated costs and a later true-up, as well as proposals for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. CSAC supported the financial aid investments but urged more time and clearer implementation planning for Workforce Pell, noting the need for state approval processes, data linkages, and likely ongoing administrative workload. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding and cautioned that the Workforce Pell trailer bill and one-time funding were premature given the new federal rules and unclear workload. Senators also raised concerns about the Middle Class Scholarship reduction, the need to support students facing higher living costs, and the decline in CADA/DREAM Act applications, with CSAC saying the drop did not reflect reduced need and that outreach should be strengthened. The final item was a set of technical trailer bill changes to shift some UC, CSU, and community college reporting from annual to biennial and consolidate reports; Finance said there were no programmatic changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• programs.
• it's a workforce program.
• funding programs.
• with 48 associate degree programs and 16 bachelor's degree programs.
• 48 associate degree programs and 16 bachelor's degree programs.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education received an overview of Florida’s career and technical education (CTE) system from Chancellor Kevin O’Farrell, who described the state’s CTE pathways, program types, enrollment and completion growth, quality audit metrics, and the Master Credentials List used to identify credentials of value. He highlighted record postsecondary CTE enrollment and completions, strong statewide performance in talent attraction, and several funding tools supporting expansion, including Open Door, the Florida First Responder Scholarship, Workforce Development Capitalization grants, Perkins funding, CAPE performance incentives, and apprenticeship grants. Senators asked about eligibility for Open Door and first responder aid, top industry certifications, and the teacher apprenticeship initiative. A panel of college and technical school leaders then described how state and federal funding has supported local program growth and facility expansion. Santa Fe College, Palm Beach State College, North Florida Technical College, Lake Technical College, Florida Gateway College, and Manatee Technical College each cited increases in enrollment, high placement or licensure pass rates, and new or expanded programs in nursing, welding, CDL, automotive, manufacturing, public safety, and apprenticeship. Several speakers emphasized partnerships with hospitals, employers, school districts, and local governments, and noted that grants helped fund equipment, renovations, and new training hubs. Palm Beach State also raised a request to broaden line funding beyond nursing to other health science fields, and multiple presenters asked for more flexibility, multi-year support, and continued or increased funding to sustain growth. Members discussed broader challenges, including the difficulty of sustaining grant-funded growth after initial awards, the lag between enrollment growth and funding formulas, and alignment problems for dual enrollment and technical programs with high school schedules. Senators also noted the need to balance support for high-demand core programs like nursing and welding with the ability to respond quickly to emerging industries such as AI and space. The meeting ended with no formal action beyond adjournment after Senator Davis moved to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• strong communities is a program created strong communities is a program created to<00:01:06.560>
• apprenticeship Readiness program apprenticeship Readiness program designed<00:02:50.200> to
• Additionally, each participant is assigned a program advocate at the beginning of the program and one
• But that program, I think there's a grant program, Women in Nontraditional Occupations, and other programs
• But that program, I think there's a grant program, Women in Nontraditional Occupations, and other programs

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• become available to support the programs become available to support the programs and<00:02:56.319
• sure that the JC would create a program sure that the JC would create a program Statewide<00:07:
• <00:08:22.840> I getting people through the program I getting people through the program I
• that registered apprenticeship program that registered apprenticeship program is<00:09:46.680>
• > with programs ensure program compliance with programs ensure program compliance with state<00

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• program.
• to the one-time program.
• About 80% of the TK programs are full day programs, 20% are not.
• to those specific program.
• health program.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Workforce Program.
• The programs include the Community College Perkins Program and the K-12 Strong Workforce Program, which
• , including the largest CTE program, the ROCP program.
• high school CTE programs.
• Alignment not only between our programs and K-12 programs, but with industry need as well.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Health programs.
• the program.
• These programs.
• From those programs.
• Program, which includes SNAP and TANF and other programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the two major programs funded in this budget entity are the Voluntary Pre-Kindergarten program, or
• VPK, and the School Readiness Program.
• Our largest program is our TEACH program, which is where we come in and walk alongside our workforce.
• The monitoring tool that the school readiness program and/or VPK program does relates specifically to
• And so when you're contracted for both programs, but you have differing requirements for that program

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met with a quorum and focused on School Readiness, specifically the new provider reimbursement rates and the School Readiness Plus program. The chair gave an overview of how School Readiness is funded and administered, noting that the Legislature now sets county-based reimbursement rates using market and cost data, and that School Readiness Plus was created to help families who would otherwise fall off the subsidy “cliff” at 85% of state median income by extending assistance up to 100% of state median income. Panelists from the Children’s Forum, the Association of Early Learning Coalitions, and the Division of Early Learning described the programs as major workforce and family-support tools that help parents stay employed and help providers recruit and retain qualified staff. Testimony emphasized that higher reimbursement rates increase parental choice, help providers cover rising child care costs, and support better staffing and lower turnover. The panel also said School Readiness Plus is easing the pressure on families to turn down raises or promotions for fear of losing child care assistance, though uptake is still early because the program only began in late 2024 and is only available to current School Readiness families at redetermination. The Division of Early Learning reported about 275 children enrolled in School Readiness Plus as of March 10, with expenditures of about $161,420 through January 2025, and said participation is increasing. Members asked about the federal-state funding split, wait lists, reverted funds, coalition accountability, county-based rate differences, and whether the entrance eligibility threshold should be raised or shifted to state median income. The panel said roughly 70% of School Readiness funding is federal, about 4% has typically reverted in recent years, and the wait list is around 12,000 children, with reasons including income ineligibility, lack of available seats, and funding limits. They argued that raising the entrance threshold would expand access but would require additional funding, and they also discussed the need to reduce workforce barriers such as in-person testing and training requirements. The meeting ended with no formal action beyond the presentation and member discussion, and the subcommittee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:01:10.720> menure subsidized Healthcare programs menure subsidized Healthcare programs
• Medicaid program.
• MinnesotaCare is another program that is a federal-state program. It's not the Medicaid program.
• in the two programs in the two programs there<00:18:59.799> are<00:19:00.080> premiums
• <00:32:08.320> to program which is a set of programs to program which is a set of programs

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The meeting was an informational walkthrough for the Health Finance and Policy Working Group, focused on committee structure, budget basics, and major health-related accounts and programs. Staff explained the roles of House Research and House Fiscal, then reviewed key funds used by the committee, including the general fund, government special revenue fund, federal funds, the health care access fund, remediation account, and drinking water revolving fund. They also outlined the committee’s main budget areas, noting that medical assistance is the largest general fund item and that the Department of Health is a substantial agency funded by a mix of federal, general fund, and special revenue dollars. A major portion of the presentation covered subsidized health coverage programs. Staff described Medical Assistance (Minnesota’s Medicaid program) as an entitlement for eligible Minnesotans, with no premiums or cost sharing, and explained its managed care and fee-for-service delivery systems. MinnesotaCare was presented as a separate federal-state basic health program for people who are not eligible for MA, with income limits, premiums for adults age 21 and older, and cost-sharing requirements; staff noted that federal premium tax credit changes affect MinnesotaCare premium ranges. The presentation also summarized MNsure’s role in the individual market and in determining eligibility for premium tax credits, cost-sharing reductions, MinnesotaCare, and MA. The committee also received an overview of health-related licensing boards and occupational regulation. Staff said Minnesota has 16 health-related licensing boards, funded mainly through the state government special revenue fund and subject to legislative appropriation, and explained that health occupations may be regulated by the Department of Health, the Office of Emergency Medical Services, or the boards under chapter 214. Interstate licensure compacts were briefly noted as a way to ease practice across states. No bills were debated and no votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have several additional programs in key for review.
• programs.
• The Open Door Grant Program is a financial aid program operated by the Office of Student Financial Assistance
• Some of the top programs utilizing funding our nursing Health science programs, welding technology, HVAC
• Workforce programs are required to provide at least 3 for this next year. 6 programs where a student

Transcript Highlights:

• THE MASTERS PROGRAM OFTEN ARE TIED TO THE PHD PROGRAMS.
• AT LEAST 150 OF THESE PROGRAMS.
• PROGRAMS. >> Chair: FOLLOW UP?
• THE PROGRAM.
• YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PROGRAMS AND REPACKAGE THEM MAYBE CONSOLIDATE IT WITH ANOTHER PROGRAM.

Transcript Highlights:

• addition information regarding programs addition information regarding programs um<00:09:03.440>
• Housing Development Program.
• Housing Development Program.
• , and the Bridges Program.
• , and the Bridges Program.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Housing Finance and Policy Committee met for an informational session with no bills taken up and no votes or formal actions. Members and staff introduced themselves, and Chair Speno said the committee would focus on understanding housing policy and barriers to building more homes, noting Minnesota’s housing shortage and the need to support both single-family and multifamily construction. House Research analyst Mary Davis and House Fiscal analyst Katrina Heimark gave an overview of the committee’s jurisdiction and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency’s programs and funding streams. Davis outlined areas the committee may hear about, including real estate law, landlord-tenant law, manufactured home parks, housing cooperatives, zoning, property taxes, and MHFA programs. Heimark described MHFA’s five main budget areas—development and redevelopment, housing stability, homeownership assistance, preservation, and resident/organization support—and reviewed recent appropriations, emphasizing that much of the large 2024–25 funding was one-time money and that ongoing base funding is lower in 2026–27. Members asked several questions about how prior appropriations were spent, whether unused funds return to the general fund, and whether funds can be repurposed. Heimark said transferred funds generally are not returned to the general fund if unspent, but are expected to be used for the purposes outlined in the appropriation; she also said she had requested more detailed expenditure information from the agency and would follow up. Questions also focused on who benefits from programs such as rental housing rehabilitation and the affordable rental investment fund, with the testifiers explaining that most MHFA programs are targeted to low- and moderate-income households and that income eligibility varies by program. The committee also discussed the new metro-area sales tax revenue dedicated to housing, with members requesting more detail on reporting, oversight, and allowable uses.

Transcript Highlights:

• or statewide food programs and schools like the New Mexico Grown Program, the Approved Supplier Program
• senior programs.
• The food bank program was basically a federal grant program.
• Then we put in programs like the CRP, the Conservation Reserve Program.
• Program, our ecological monitoring program, and our conservation science program.

Transcript Highlights:

• be new programs, burgeoning programs.
• But also they have another program dealing with welding, which is a great need program.
• program.
• Program.
• and programs like open door, the apprenticeship programs and they keep going.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• tax credit program.
• One other program there is, also with the same agency, is the WIN Program, Workforce Integration Program
• , the ROC Program.
• The other program here is a partner's program.
• Programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Save program.
• are running the program.
• But the PAs run the program.
• programs.
• power plant program.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on the value of Mass Save, with opening remarks emphasizing that despite past criticisms the program has delivered major energy, cost, climate, and equity benefits. The chair cited large avoided system costs, strong benefit-cost ratios, and recent legislative changes that set emissions goals, restricted fossil-fuel equipment incentives, and increased focus on low- and moderate-income households. Department of Energy Resources Commissioner Elizabeth Mahoney testified that Mass Save has weatherized hundreds of thousands of homes, reduced bills, avoided emissions, and that the current plan includes budget controls after the DPU ordered $500 million removed from the approved budget. She said the governor’s proposal to have only electric utilities administer the program was intended to reduce administrative costs and align with current implementation trends. Members questioned Mahoney about what counts as marketing and administration, and she said the category includes traditional advertising as well as community-based outreach, customer resource centers, and other customer engagement work, much of it in low- and moderate-income communities. She said administrative and marketing costs are under 5% of the budget, while more than 80% goes to incentives and direct program delivery. Several witnesses then focused on workforce and contractor impacts. Dave Betcher of Abode Energy Management and Rick Taglienti of Rogers Insulation said Mass Save sustains small businesses, creates careers, and supports thousands of jobs; both warned that budget cuts would reduce hiring, training, and work in homes and businesses. They also described a broad ecosystem of suppliers, trainers, and service providers that depends on stable program funding. Other witnesses addressed cost-effectiveness, affordability, and emissions. Anna Johnson of ACEEE said Massachusetts remains a national leader, with Mass Save returning about $2.80 per dollar invested, reducing peak demand, and lowering bills for participants, especially through weatherization and heat pumps. Kyle Murray of Acadia Center said the program is statutorily required to be cost-effective and has avoided billions in supply and infrastructure costs for all ratepayers, including nonparticipants, by lowering overall demand and peak prices. Amy Boyd-Rabin of the Environmental League of Massachusetts argued that efficiency is the cheapest way to meet climate targets and that cutting the budget would force more expensive power generation. The hearing also featured testimony on equity and housing: Mary Wampo described historic under-service to renter-heavy and lower-income communities and said recent reforms, including designated equity communities and performance incentives tied to equity, are helping correct that imbalance; Brian Biot and James Collins of LEAN/ABCD described low-income delivery systems and wraparound services; Barney Heath and John Nannari said Mass Save incentives are essential to affordable housing, passive house construction, and keeping projects on time and on budget. The final witnesses highlighted Connected Solutions and electrification: Sunrun’s Bronte Payne said the virtual power plant program saved more than it cost and helps avoid peaker plants and grid upgrades, and Highland Electric Fleets’ Ben Sondaga said electric school buses can provide similar grid benefits while lowering transportation costs for districts.

Transcript Highlights:

• Support Program.
• particular program.
• the program up and running for the two remaining programs in the series of programs that we will operate
• : the Loan Participation Program and the Capital Access Program.
• SSBCI program.

Transcript Highlights:

• Market Nutrition Program.
• This program is income-based.
• Currently, right now, my program does work with 47 farmers' markets on the program.
• So the approved supplier program is a farmer capacity and market readiness program.
• So the total program activity proposed. $10.3 million for this program.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:21:46.720> federal program the chip program the federal program the chip program the federal
• program.
• program forensic mental health program program forensic mental health program um<00:48:45.640>
• County administered County administered programs<01:00:25.799> um programs um programs um this
• > shelter<01:04:55.039> programs emergency shelter programs emergency shelter programs

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met for an introductory overview of its jurisdiction and staff roles. Nonpartisan House Research and House Fiscal staff explained that they draft bills and amendments, prepare bill summaries and background research, answer legal and fiscal questions, and help track revenue and budget effects. They also distributed a Budget Overview Brief intended to condense the larger budget materials into a more usable format for members. Staff then walked through the Human Services budget and the committee’s areas of responsibility. They described the department structure, noting that DHS oversees administration, compliance, rulemaking, and county support, and that the overall Human Services budget is large, with medical assistance as the dominant program. They also explained recent and upcoming reorganizations: many children and family-related functions are moving to the new Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Direct Care and Treatment is becoming its own agency, and some homelessness-related functions remain at DHS. Staff reviewed how the budget is organized by program and budget activity, the difference between direct appropriations and standing appropriations, and how forecasted programs and “tails” work in the budget process. The presentation also covered Medicaid financing and long-term care. Staff explained the federal-state FMAP match, including Minnesota’s current 51.16% federal match for most Medicaid spending, the CHIP match, and the 90% federal share for the expansion population. For long-term care, they outlined Medical Assistance services for elderly and disabled people, state-funded long-term care supports, and Board on Aging programs. They highlighted the personal care assistance program’s phaseout and replacement by Community First Services and Supports, and reviewed the five home- and community-based waivers. Members asked one question about refugee resettlement funding, specifically whether it covers flights; staff said they would need to follow up on the exact use of the federal funds. No bills were heard, and no formal votes or other committee actions were taken during this meeting.