Transcript Highlights:

• I'll also just note, in food assistance, the state has the program called the California Food Assistance
• Act programs.
• When combined with other looming federal cuts and state budget cuts to our program serving undocumented
• programs, and pursue revenue solutions that prioritize the health and security of all people in our state
• And as I stated earlier, we're also concerned about the Graduate Plus program. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held its fifth hearing of the year to examine the newly enacted federal H.R. 1 and its effects on California. Members and the chair described the law as a major threat to state health, food, education, and climate programs, and emphasized that California would not be able to fully backfill the federal cuts. Several members also highlighted the bill’s tax provisions, including temporary deductions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, while warning that the largest benefits flow to higher-income taxpayers and that major cuts to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and clean-energy incentives are delayed or phased in over time. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance presented detailed overviews of the bill’s likely impacts and implementation timelines. They identified the main affected areas as health care coverage and financing, food assistance, higher education, personal income taxes, and clean-energy/electric-vehicle credits. They explained that H.R. 1 limits provider taxes used to finance Medi-Cal, adds work and redetermination requirements, restricts CalFresh eligibility and increases state costs, changes student loan and Pell Grant rules, extends and modifies federal tax provisions, and phases out many clean-energy credits. Finance also noted major rescissions of Inflation Reduction Act funds, new border and immigration enforcement spending, and the possibility of PAYGO sequestration if Congress does not act to offset the deficit increase. During member questions, the committee focused on likely enrollment losses, administrative burdens, and fiscal exposure for the state and counties. Witnesses said many details still depend on federal guidance, but they estimated significant impacts on Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and graduate/professional student borrowing, and noted that California’s high CalFresh error rate could increase state costs. UC testified that the elimination of Graduate PLUS loans would affect thousands of professional students, especially in health, law, and other high-cost programs. Members asked for follow-up data on county, health, and tax impacts, and staff agreed to provide additional tables and estimates as implementation guidance becomes clearer. Public commenters from counties, early childhood advocates, health coalitions, disability rights groups, immigrant-rights organizations, and other stakeholders urged the Legislature to mitigate the law’s effects. They warned of higher county costs, reduced access to health care and food assistance, increased administrative burdens, and harm to children, immigrants, people with disabilities, and low-income families. Several urged new state revenue solutions and stronger protections for Medi-Cal, CalFresh, child care, and home- and community-based services. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with a commitment to continue monitoring federal guidance and to work on state responses in the budget process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Ultimately, just creates a state-level program that builds upon really the successful federal program
• And so in '07, these states that were getting a little started to pass state-level programs to attract
• state level programs to started to pass state level programs to attract<00:03:55.760> more<00
• Um, that state that passes the program.
• other states that have passed programs other states that have passed programs like<00:04:19.840>

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 2360, as amended by H.F. 2360A1, which would create a state-level New Markets Tax Credit-style program modeled on the federal program. Chair Swedzinski explained that the bill is intended to drive investment across Minnesota, including a requirement that at least 50% of the $200 million allocation be directed to greater Minnesota, and noted that the program would run for 12 months with state oversight to help guide investments. Testimony in support came from Alex Stuponic of Advantage Capital and Jason Wabama of Advanced Machine Guarding Solutions in Hibbing. Stuponic described the federal New Markets program as a tool for directing capital to low-income and underserved communities, cited Minnesota projects that have already benefited from federal funding, and argued that state programs in other states have successfully attracted more investment. Wabama said the credit could help rural businesses like his expand, noting that his Hibbing company has grown from one employee in 2021 to 22 employees and hopes to reach 50 employees while eventually becoming an ESOP. Chair Gomez raised concerns about the bill’s changes, especially the set-aside of half the funds for one region and the five-year carryforward, saying the proposal seemed arbitrary and more permissive and that there was likely not room in the budget for the $100 million cost this year. In response, Swedzinski said the fiscal note pushes costs into future years, with the first costs beginning in 2028-2029, and emphasized that the structure would allow the investment benefits to occur upfront. The amendment was adopted, and the bill, as amended, was laid over for possible inclusion in the omnibus tax bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• sales, and leasing program.
• Separate collection programs have been set up throughout the state to discourage landfill disposal.
• Separate collection programs have been set up throughout the state to discourage a landfill disposal.
• Additionally, we have successful EPR programs here in our own state, which you just heard about, which
• state.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The committee’s interim work session focused first on carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS), with presenters from industry, nonprofits, and state agencies describing Washington’s geologic potential, the role of basalt formations, and the difference between point-source capture, direct air capture, utilization, and permanent storage. Industry and project developers emphasized that Washington has major opportunities to reduce industrial emissions, create jobs, and support hard-to-electrify sectors, while state agencies explained current policy touchpoints in the Cap and Invest Program, emissions exemptions for permanently stored CO2, and the Clean Energy Transformation Act. Several presenters urged clearer statutory and regulatory pathways, including rules for pore space, subsurface rights, pipeline siting, and long-term liability; others cautioned that CCUS should be limited to real emissions reductions and not treated as a substitute for broader clean energy measures. Committee members asked about public comment opportunities, whether mineralized carbon would qualify for exemption under the Climate Commitment Act, the energy intensity of capture systems, aquifer protection, and liability if storage later proves problematic. Ecology said it is developing guidance through a public engagement process running through late June and that mineralized or otherwise permanently stored CO2 would likely qualify if it meets the 1,000-year permanence standard. DNR and outside experts also discussed trust lands, water rights, and the need for additional geophysical surveys and test wells. The panel did not take any votes or formal actions. The second half of the meeting turned to hazardous waste and extended producer responsibility. Ecology reviewed existing product stewardship programs for electronics, paint, batteries, and mercury lights, and described how moderate risk waste and household hazardous waste are currently collected through county facilities and events. Ecology said the electronics program is its best model, while the mercury lamp program is currently in transition after the prior stewardship organization exited and a new organization is seeking approval. Ecology recommended that future EPR programs have clear producer and product definitions, full producer funding, convenience standards, annual reporting, and strong enforcement authority. Local government witnesses from King County and Douglas County described rising costs, access barriers in rural areas, and the need for stable funding and flexible local delivery models. King County said it collected over 3 million pounds of hazardous products in 2025 and argued that EPR could reduce costs for ratepayers and improve equity. Douglas County stressed that rural residents are willing to participate when services are available, but travel distance and operating costs make access difficult. An industry representative supported narrowly scoped stewardship programs like PaintCare but warned that broad household hazardous waste EPR systems can become difficult to administer and may require legislative revisions if responsibilities are not clearly defined. No votes were taken on the hazardous waste topic either.

Transcript Highlights:

• housing, and the multifamily housing program, which enables the state to serve households at deeper
• Small Business Administration State Trade Expansion Program award.
• We're the largest instrument program in the United States.
• Are there any additional state staff members that are applied to this program, this California versus
• So two state employees with fringe benefits. So we're talking about... Thank you. program also.

Summary: The subcommittee first heard an informational presentation on the May Revision’s proposed reorganization of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into separate housing-focused and consumer/business-focused entities. Administration officials said the split would improve oversight, streamline decision-making, and create a dedicated California Housing and Homelessness Agency with a new housing development and finance committee. The Department of Finance said funding was needed in 2025-26 to begin implementation, while the LAO recommended rejecting the proposal without prejudice because the Little Hoover Commission review was still pending and the plan would require ongoing General Fund costs. Members raised concerns about the timing, the lack of alignment with the budget process, and whether the reorganization would improve accountability for homelessness spending; several public witnesses supported the concept but stressed it could not substitute for new housing and homelessness dollars. The committee then took up the Department of Veterans Affairs. CalVet requested funding for phase three of its electronic health care record project and a trailer bill to preserve authority for federal background checks, but the May Revision withdrew requests for deferred maintenance and additional administrative support. The LAO noted deferred maintenance can prevent larger future costs, and the chair criticized the withdrawal of less than $1 million for veterans’ homes as short-sighted given existing repair needs. No vote was taken. Next, the Department of Housing and Community Development presented its budget. HCD said the May Revision provides no new affordable housing or homelessness funding, but does retain existing rounds of funding and proposes a $31.7 million reversion from undersubscribed housing programs. Members from both parties expressed concern about zeroing out ongoing housing and homelessness investments, especially for LIHTC, the Multifamily Housing Program, and HAP. HCD also defended its homelessness accountability and compliance work, saying the unit includes about 30 program staff and six attorneys, with three additional attorneys requested mainly to handle public records and litigation workload. Public commenters largely opposed the lack of new funding and urged continued support for housing and homelessness programs, while some supported the reorganization and accountability efforts. Finally, the committee heard Go-Biz proposals. The administration requested authority to increase funding for a federal trade program match if needed, plus reappropriations for administrative funds tied to the Containerized Ports Interoperability Grant Program, zero-emission vehicle operations, and the Women’s Business Center Enhancement Program. It also proposed withdrawing the Cal Competes grant request and reverting remaining funds from the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund. The LAO said Cal Competes is generally effective but could be cut as a budget solution, while warning that the performing arts fund was close to awards and should be considered carefully. Members objected to pulling back committed funds for performing arts organizations and questioned why the state would withdraw support after applications had already been submitted.

Transcript Highlights:

• All of our recommendations here are directed at the state, given this is about state funding.
• State grant programs like TIB and WSDOT active transportation are essential to cities.
• on an existing program or a new program altogether, and whether a program is working with existing recipients
• We saw that in some programs that were built on legacy programs that predated the CCA.
• Our objective is simple: build a strong program today so that Washington State can make better decisions

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I am here with this panel in support of an act to strengthen the state home care program.
• to provide services under the state home care program.
• ineligible to be awarded a future state home care program contract with the department.
• This is why recognizing PACE in state statute and recognizing this program is so important.
• Across the country, many states have extended Medicaid programs to cover assisted living.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several aging-related bills, with most speakers focusing on housing stability, home-based services, and care transitions. Representative Badger and a commissioner testified in support of H4039, which would create a universal breakfast and lunch program at senior centers funded through a new Senior Breakfast and Lunch Fund, arguing it would reduce food insecurity and social isolation among older adults. Representative Lipper-Garabedian and multiple providers then supported H780/S495, the hospital-to-home partnership program, describing how embedded aging-services liaisons help older patients transition safely from hospitals to home, reduce readmissions, and avoid nursing facility placement; witnesses from Mystic Valley Elder Services and Mass Aging Access cited pilot results, including hundreds of patients served and examples of substantial cost savings and successful discharge planning. The committee also took testimony on S478, which would require continuing care retirement communities to disclose entrance-fee refund policies more clearly at enrollment. Senator Lovely and LeadingAge Massachusetts said the bill would improve transparency for residents and families, while a consumer witness said her family experienced delays and confusion in getting a refund after her mother left a CCRC. Members noted the issue is also being examined by a special commission on CCRCs. A large portion of the hearing focused on S475, a statewide bridge subsidy program for older adults facing housing instability. Advocates from the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless, Western Massachusetts, Somerville, Northampton, East Hampton, Old Colony Elder Services, and Somerville’s Office of Housing Stability described rising senior homelessness, long waitlists for subsidized housing, and cases where short-term rental assistance kept older adults housed while they waited for permanent housing. Somerville witnesses said the pilot program helped nine households remain housed and that some participants have since moved into permanent housing. Members asked about wait times, program design, and how to prioritize applicants; witnesses emphasized flexibility, emergency risk, and the need for a statewide expansion. The hearing also included testimony on S465, an ALS bill that would expand home care access regardless of age and bar the use of quality-adjusted life-year metrics in coverage decisions, with the sponsor and ALS Association arguing the measure would reduce discriminatory treatment and better center patient care. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• While definitions may vary by state, low-producing programs are commonly identified through multi-year
• , are the state legislators to that point of micromanaging the different programs in each of these states
• We have a high demand for this program in this area of the state.
• The first program at Minot State, Dakota College, and then Bismarck came in and said, we want a program
• Now, do we want at least every program maybe with one institution in the state? That's fine.

Summary: The Higher Ed Funding Committee met to review how North Dakota might identify and address low-producing academic programs and to discuss draft funding formulas for the university system. Lisa Johnson of the NDUS explained that the State Board of Higher Education is already developing a system-wide policy, using models from other states such as Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, and Connecticut. She described how low-producing programs are typically flagged by multi-year enrollment or completion thresholds, then reviewed for workforce demand, mission fit, cost, accreditation, and regional need before any action is taken. Committee members asked about what counts as a program, how costs are analyzed, whether certificates are included, how exemptions work for mission-critical or high-demand fields, and whether the board or legislature should set the rules. Johnson said the board is the appropriate body to lead the process, but legislators could use funding leverage if they wanted to encourage action; the chair asked the board to bring a detailed proposal to the June meeting. The committee then heard a Legislative Council presentation on a draft formula for UND and NDSU. The proposal uses fall census FTE enrollment, with a placeholder undergraduate rate of $7,000 per FTE and a graduate/professional rate of $10,500, plus incentives for completions in in-demand fields and research productivity. Alex from Legislative Council walked through the projected funding effects, noting that the model would increase funding for NDSU and reduce it for UND in the current biennium, with different results in the next biennium as enrollment changes are recognized. Members questioned the use of the placeholder rates, the definition of in-demand programs, the treatment of research funding, and the exclusion of state-appropriated dollars from the external grants calculation. The chair emphasized that the numbers were illustrative and that appropriators would set the actual dollar amounts later. A second draft formula for the other nine institutions was also reviewed. That model uses fall census FTE without a weighted economic factor, applies a higher undergraduate rate, and adds completion incentives for in-demand credentials and all other completions. Members noted that the formula would benefit some institutions, such as Bismarck State College, while reducing funding for others, such as Mayville State, and discussed whether the nine institutions should be treated more uniformly or split into smaller groups because of their different missions and sizes. Committee members and staff repeatedly stressed that the formulas are still being refined and that some institutions would likely need hold-harmless adjustments or other transition measures. The meeting ended with the chair directing the committee to continue the discussion later and to expect further work on both the low-producing program policy and the funding formulas.

Transcript Highlights:

• The programs are a simple and effective lever for the state to address the ongoing challenges of affordability
• or the 21st Century program.
• As was stated, we're here today to talk about enrollment and health care workforce programs and how one-time
• meet state workforce needs.
• back to the state.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on three education budget items: the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), differentiated assistance/statewide system of support, and universal school meals plus kitchen infrastructure grants. For ELOP, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to provide $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding and $62.4 million to set a minimum Tier 2 rate of $1,800 per pupil. The LAO recommended instead fixing the Tier 2 rate at $1,579, and committee members questioned how the rate was determined, how much funding is actually spent, and whether overlapping funding from ELOP, ACEs, and 21st Century programs is being tracked. CDE said ELOP is showing positive attendance and math outcomes, but some requested data will not be available until mid-2027; members also raised concerns about double-funding, transparency, and whether middle and high school students are being equitably served. On differentiated assistance, CCEE outlined the statewide system of support and the various tiers of universal, targeted, supplemental, and intensive assistance. Finance explained the Governor’s proposal to replace the current DA structure with a more stable universal and targeted assistance model, funded at $131.9 million ongoing, with a three-year support cycle aligned to LCAP and ESSA timelines and broader State Board authority to revise eligibility criteria. The LAO objected to considering the proposal before the State Board finalizes the new performance criteria, and committee members expressed concern that moving to a three-year cycle could delay support for LEAs that newly fall into need mid-cycle. There was also discussion about whether the proposal would weaken subgroup-based equity guardrails or give the State Board too much discretion over who qualifies for support. For school meals and kitchen infrastructure, Finance proposed $1.8 billion ongoing for universal meals and an additional $100 million ongoing plus $100 million one-time for a fourth round of kitchen infrastructure and training grants. The LAO recommended rejecting the new kitchen grant round because prior rounds are still being spent and the unmet need is not yet clear. CDE said prior investments have improved meal participation, efficiency, and menu variety, but many schools still lack the facilities for scratch cooking and face construction, electrical, and procurement barriers. Members asked for more data on how prior grants were used, which schools are benefiting, and whether funds could also support lower-cost food access strategies such as pantries, while noting federal restrictions on some meal-service innovations.

Transcript Highlights:

• program<00:08:25.479> uh<00:08:25.800> State Minnesota state grant program uh State
• > again our State financial aid programs again our State financial aid programs again like<00:
• We want them to access our state financial aid programs.
• c> and state financial aid programs and state financial aid programs and opportunities<00:36:29.480
• state Grant programs scholarships of the state Grant programs scholarships um<01:24:45.920> and

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• program deficit.
• Other states are seeing increased costs in Medi-Cal programs.
• to another program.
• this program.
• This program will allow the transition for county and state participants from one-time provider access

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today we have some investments as a state in terms of youth programming.
• Today we have some investments as a state in terms of youth programming.
• Today we have some investments as a state in terms of youth programming.
• Today we have some investments as a state in terms of youth programming.
• I track all 50 states and Canadian provinces' adoption subsidy or adoption assistance programs.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The State Water Board Safer Program, which was enacted in 2019, has delivered to 900,000 Californians
• the state board programs, again, board processes, public transparency and reporting, many reports that
• State Parks has had this mandate for a while of doing a comprehensive sea level rise assessment or program
• state.
• The second is also at state parks, it's their deferred maintenance program, which you hear me every year

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , $48 million to support our state mental health treatment facilities, $15 million to support programs
• the state.
• Thank you. ...for Commerce to continue hurricane recovery and mitigation programs across the state, an
• Does the budget include any funding for the state share of the SunBucks Summer EBT Program, where we
• state of Florida.

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the conference report on House Bill 501E, the General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2026-27. Budget chairs presented the major spending areas, describing a $114.5 billion overall budget that they said was fiscally responsible and below the prior year’s spending. Highlights included pay increases and retirement adjustments for public safety employees, education funding for K-12, higher education, health and human services, criminal justice, transportation, environmental programs, and agriculture/regulatory agencies. Members then questioned chairs on several items. In education, senators discussed K-12 declining enrollment funding, teacher salary set-asides, private school scholarship spending, mental health funding, preeminence funding for universities, the Hamilton Center at UF, and charter school PICO funding. In health and human services, questions focused on the iBudget waiver waitlist, provider rates, ADAP/HIV funding and the return of Biktarvy to the formulary, KidCare, rural health funding, SNAP-related IT and error reduction efforts, and the IDD managed care program. In criminal justice, senators asked about correctional officer pay, prison staffing and infrastructure, air conditioning in prisons, juvenile justice facilities, law enforcement recruitment, and court system funding. Environmental and transportation questions covered Florida Forever, water quality, state parks, water projects, housing, elections funding, and emergency management. Several specific actions and explanations were given during debate: the budget includes $8.8 million for state attorney competitive area differentials but no funding for public defender CAD requests; assistant state attorneys will start at $70,000 and assistant public defenders at $65,000; the battery disposal issue was described as a temporary study/preemption approach; and the Senate said the budget does not fund Medicaid expansion, preeminence funding, or the SunBucks Summer EBT state share. Senators also noted that some proposals discussed in committee did not make it into the final budget. The transcript ends with debate statements from members praising the budget process and Chair Hooper, while also expressing concerns about public schools, health care access, affordability, and the lack of funding for certain priorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:07:08.599> at<00:07:08.759> all state program it is not at all state program it is
• The other last thing is that this program started as a pilot program in this state.
• The other last thing is that this program started as a pilot program in this state.
• The other last thing is that this program started as a pilot program in this state.
• The other last thing is that this program started as a pilot program in this state.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you go across the state, we've got a nursing program in Bismarck that's doing great work.
• If you go across the state, we've got a nursing program in Bismarck that's doing great work.
• NDSU is also home to the largest undergraduate nursing program in the state, and over time more than
• We are the home of the largest nursing program in the state.
• So increasing the North Dakota State grant by $1 million, increasing our scholars program by $700,000

Summary: The Higher Education Institutions Committee met at NDSU and heard an extensive presentation from President David Cook/President Stewart and NDSU leadership on the university’s priorities, including enrollment, student success, research growth, and use of New Horizons funding. Leaders emphasized NDSU’s land-grant mission, its role in workforce development, and its goal of becoming more distinctive through strategic planning, recruitment and retention, commercialization, and partnerships. They highlighted that NDSU awarded 2,370 degrees in 2025, produces a large share of the state’s engineering, nursing, and agriculture graduates, and reported strong outcomes for graduates staying and working in North Dakota. They also noted enrollment headwinds, competition from other institutions, and the need to manage tuition waivers more carefully through a scholarship optimization effort. Provost Sherry Vale outlined academic stewardship efforts, including review or consolidation of low-producing programs, strategic hiring tied to institutional priorities, faculty workload policy changes, and expanded online and regional offerings. She said the university is using New Horizons dollars to strengthen advising, student support, and programs in engineering, agriculture, and health. NDSU leaders also described new or expanded academic offerings such as robotics and automation, artificial intelligence, material science and engineering, nuclear engineering certificates, accelerated nursing, nurse practitioner certificates, a Master of Health Administration, and a clinical research master’s program with Sanford Health. They stressed that these investments are intended to improve student completion, meet workforce needs, and increase return on public investment. The committee also heard testimony from students and recent graduates who described the value of NDSU’s education, mentorship, internships, research opportunities, and support services. Alyssa Hodges spoke about pharmacy education, public health work, and campus support as a parent and student; Ethan Blessy described engineering coursework, internships with Marvin, and career preparation; and Aiden Freolic discussed neuroscience research, federally funded projects, and plans for graduate study. Their testimony was followed by presentations on partnerships with Gateway to Science for K-12 STEM outreach and with Sanford Research on biomedical research, clinical trials, obesity research, and a joint biostatistics hire. NDSU also highlighted systemwide shared services, Governor’s School programming, and research growth, including a reported 8% increase in research expenditures from $199 million to $215 million. No bill votes were taken; the meeting was informational and featured presentations, testimony, and discussion of future planning and partnerships.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and this investment would continue to add programs across the state that work together with our K-12
• The state investment to those programs is merely about $250,000.
• , and it will only allow programs to be state-funded if they're at 60% full.
• We partner several programs with Wichita State University, and they have Wichita State Tech.
• And finally, I'm going to point out that we have a unique program and focus as a state arts agency that

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you go across the state, we've got a nursing program in Bismarck that's doing great work.
• NDSU is also home to the largest undergraduate nursing program in the state, and over time more than
• Working with the State Board of Higher Education, we've developed a low-producing program review process
• We are the home of the largest nursing program in the state.
• I will say, if you can recall what we did last session, is we added a state supplemental grant program

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So there are programs that have those kinds of in-state residency or...
• c> have that the state grant program does have that the state grant program does have an<00:57:30.160
• <00:58:06.319> tuition<00:58:06.680> and state grant program are the tuition and state
• bit about OHE's role in administering state supplemental loan programs.
• in administering state supplemental loan programs.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Higher Ed Finance and Policy Committee met to begin a budget overview for higher education. The chair noted quorum, committee member introductions, and that Democratic members were absent. The chair also said the Office of Higher Education would not be appearing for the planned budget deep dive, so nonpartisan fiscal staff would present instead. Ken Savory, the committee’s nonpartisan fiscal analyst, introduced a presentation on the higher education finance structure and timeline. Savory explained the state budget cycle, the difference between direct appropriations, statutory appropriations, open appropriations, base funding, tails, and one-time appropriations, and how those concepts apply to higher education. He described the committee’s usual budget areas: the Office of Higher Education, Minnesota State, the University of Minnesota, and the Mayo Foundation. He also reviewed historical spending charts showing higher education’s share of the general fund over time, the 2/3-1/3 funding policy in statute, and how tuition and general fund support have shifted. He noted that the FY 26-27 base for the Office of Higher Education area is about $725 million, including roughly $450 million for the State Grant program and about $99 million for North Star Promise. Members asked about comparing the current budget to earlier biennia, and staff responded that they would need to calculate the percentage difference. The chair then summarized prior budget growth, saying the previous budget was about $650 million over base and the current budget/tail was about $450 million over base. Staff also reviewed the 2024 omnibus higher education bill, including a roughly $5 million reduction to North Star Promise that was redirected to the Fostering Independence Grant program and a $500,000 appropriation for Minnesota State’s Kids on Campus program. The committee did not take any formal votes or actions during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are 56 programs distributed from the Public School Fund, 14 from other state funds, and 29 from
• Program amounts distributed to each recipient from other state funds are on Attachment 5, and amounts
• That was on my radar, too, because a lot of the feedback we got in the two different Girl State programs
• That was on my radar, too, because a lot of the feedback we got in the two different Girl State programs
• That was on my radar, too, because a lot of the feedback we got in the two different Girl State programs

Summary: The committee first approved the May 18 meeting minutes and then received a Legislative Audit presentation summarizing Arkansas Department of Education grant distributions for fiscal year 2025. Auditors said the department distributed about $4.6 billion in grants overall, including $3.2 billion from the Public School Fund, $1.1 billion in federal funds, and $268 million from other state and miscellaneous sources, across 56 Public School Fund programs, 14 other state programs, and 29 federal programs. Members asked about specific recipients and programs, including ClassWallet, master principal bonuses, Economics Arkansas, and CDC surveillance funding; audit staff and Department of Education representatives explained that the report was only a distribution summary and not a recipient-level audit. Members also questioned why many districts showed lower funding, and staff said the decline was largely due to reduced federal and one-time COVID-related funds. Senators and representatives also discussed whether some incentive programs, such as master principal and national board bonuses, were tied to student outcomes, and whether Economics Arkansas was the sole entity named in special language for financial literacy funding; department staff said they would follow up on several details. The committee then heard a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on consumer price index projections from Moody’s Analytics and S&P Global, with discussion of CPI-U and core CPI estimates for future fiscal years. Dr. Carlos Silva explained that the forecasts generally trend toward about 2 percent over time and that recent projections may have understated actual inflation because of recent shocks. Members asked about the accuracy of past projections, and he said he would provide more detail later if needed. The bulk of the meeting focused on the final adequacy report on teacher recruitment, retention, and salaries. BLR staff reported that Arkansas had about 32,800 teachers and 473,000 students in 2025, with a statewide student-to-teacher ratio of about 14 to 1, average teaching experience of 11.9 years, and a slight increase in National Board Certified teachers. The report found that districts with higher poverty and minority concentrations generally had less experienced teachers, and that teacher shortages remained widespread, especially in special education, math, science, and foreign language. Members asked about licensure exceptions, alternative preparation pathways, incentives for ESL and special education endorsements, and the cost and return on investment of traditional versus alternative routes. Staff said some licensure exceptions are being phased out under Act 304 of 2025 and that they would follow up on several requested details. The report also found that teacher retention averaged 87 percent statewide in 2025, with districts retaining teachers at higher rates than charters, and that 30 percent of surveyed teachers were considering leaving the profession. Principals and teachers identified school leadership as the strongest positive factor in recruitment and retention, while workload and salary were the strongest negative factors. On salaries, BLR reported a statewide average teacher salary of $60,254 in 2025, with districts averaging $60,458 and charters $55,724. Arkansas ranked 45th nationally on average teacher salary in 2025, though its cost-adjusted ranking improved to 36th; among SREB states it ranked 12th, and among neighboring states it ranked fourth. Members asked about starting salaries, salary compression, district step increases, and whether the report should be shared more broadly with educators and school leaders. Staff said they would provide follow-up information on several questions, and the committee took no formal action beyond receiving the presentations and asking for additional data.

Transcript Highlights:

• grant<00:04:52.320> program coupled with state grant program coupled with state grant
• <00:05:12.800> work<00:05:13.120> study state work study state work study program.<00:05
• <00:37:01.359> program state grant great state grant program state grant great state grant
• > be the state grant program can be the state grant program can be distributed.<00:38:49.119>
• to participate in state student loan programs.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all