Transcript Highlights:

• and 2024 budget acts.
• Is this allocation paying back that loan? This allocation is not paying back that loan.
• deficits in the state budget.
• We're a thousand-plus percent over budget on the undocumented immigrant allocation of $500 million, and
• The total Medi-Cal budget.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on SB 100/AB 100, the early action budget bills, with a focus on Medi-Cal funding, wildfire recovery, and several smaller budget adjustments. The Department of Finance explained that the bill would add $2.8 billion General Fund and $8.3 billion federal funds for Medi-Cal, along with other items including wildfire-related local assistance for Los Angeles County, property tax backfills for fire-damaged local agencies, Cal OES wildfire monitoring authority, nonprofit security grants, the Property Tax Postponement Fund, FARMER and Clean Cars for All funding, foster family home insurance claims, Proposition 98 technical assistance for LA wildfire-impacted schools, teacher credentialing authority, and Proposition 4 climate bond appropriations for wildfire and forest resilience projects. Much of the member discussion centered on rising Medi-Cal costs, the recent $3.4 billion cash-flow loan, and whether the new appropriation would cover payments through June. Finance said the new funds were for program costs and cash flow, not repayment of the loan, and that no additional loan authority remained. Members also debated the causes of higher Medi-Cal spending, including expanded eligibility, higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, and federal policy changes. The LAO noted that forecasting errors are not unusual but that current revisions are somewhat higher than typical, though not unprecedented. Several members emphasized that Medi-Cal supports access to care and hospital stability, while others raised concerns about sustainability and future federal cuts. Public commenters largely supported the bill, especially the Medi-Cal funding and wildfire-related provisions. Health and labor advocates argued that the program is functioning as intended by covering more low-income Californians and preventing uncompensated care. Representatives of special districts and the Altadena Library District supported the property tax backfill provisions tied to the Eaton fire. The hearing ended without a vote, with the chair noting that the committee would adjourn for floor session and that the Assembly would vote on one of the early action bills later that morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• In last year's budget.
• Again, we don't base our budget off of CPI or cost of living, and the base allocation increased by $85
• Again, we don't base our budget off of CPI or cost of living, and the base allocation increased by $85
• Again, we don't base our budget off of CPI or cost of living and the base allocation increased by $85
• funding for public defender's budget and state attorney's budget.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, a moment of silence for former Senator Don Childers, the Pledge of Allegiance, and recognition of Officer Antonio Richardson as law enforcement officer of the day. The chamber announced it would take up 11 budget conference committee reports, with no third-reading bills or special-order calendar items. Members were reminded that conference reports were subject to debate but not amendment, and that the required review periods had been satisfied. The first major action was on HB 7031E, the tax package. Representative Duggan explained that the conference report included a mix of retained, modified, and new tax provisions, including sales tax holidays, property tax and homestead-related changes, reductions in certain gaming and carbon-related taxes, changes to child care and documentary stamp tax credits, a new refund process for public works construction tax paid by universities and colleges, and other tax administration changes. Debate focused on the bill’s consumer impact, the reduction of the child tax credit from three years to one, the inclusion of firearm accessories in a sales tax holiday, the absence of gas tax relief and combined reporting, and the homestead exemption provision for certain deployed diplomatic and foreign service personnel. Critics argued the package favored niche or corporate interests over broad affordability relief, while supporters said it provided targeted tax relief and reflected conference negotiations. The House adopted the conference report and passed HB 7031E by a vote of 88-11. The House then began presenting the conference report for HB 501E, the state budget, which totaled $114.5 billion for fiscal year 2026-27 and was described as below the prior year’s spending level while maintaining reserves. Subcommittee chairs outlined major budget areas: pre-K-12 funding included an increase in FEFP, salary increases for veteran teachers, stabilization funding, and support for declining enrollment; higher education included full Bright Futures funding, workforce programs, college operating support, university initiatives, and school guardian expansion; IT funding focused on Palm, ACCESS, APD’s I-Connect replacement, corrections systems, emergency management systems, and cybersecurity grants; health care funding covered Medicaid, nursing home rates, waiver provider increases, ADAP funding and restructuring, child welfare, and behavioral health; transportation and economic development included housing, cultural grants, jobs and rural infrastructure, Visit Florida, Space Florida, highway patrol equipment, and local transportation projects; justice funding included correctional construction, juvenile justice facilities, law enforcement grants, and clerk and due process reimbursements; state administration included fire stations, constrained counties, building maintenance, and Safe Florida Home; and agriculture/natural resources funding emphasized Everglades restoration, water quality, land acquisition, Florida Forever, state parks, and citrus research. Members then began questioning the budget details, including school voucher accountability, school funding formulas, public defender parity, prison technology, wastewater monitoring in prisons, ADAP policy, SNAP fraud controls and AI-assisted verification, Florida Forever funding, school lunch funding, and coral reef restoration. No final vote on HB 501E appears in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• The total one-time allocation on line 13 is $7,635,349.
• That allocation is for $10,000.
• This allocation continues on through page 11, at the bottom of page 11, line 59, for a proposed allocation
• an allocated amount of $540,000.
• Total allocation for this section is on line 14 at $310,000.

Keywords: 1064, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And welcome to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4.
• These reflect errors in the budget change proposal.
• Or whether we should wait for those allocations.
• It's not allocated, I'm sorry, and gentlemen, it's not allocated.
• The second point is the energy package from the governor's budget, which includes DSGS and DEBA allocations

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• through a rigorous annual budgeting through a rigorous annual budgeting process<00:13:06.279>
• is 518,000 this nursing's allocation is 518,000 this allocation<00:35:32.200> was<00:35:32.480
• However, I will also say when we have flexibility and we have flat budgets or no budgets, then that's
• or no budgets and we have flat budgets or no budgets then<01:03:10.760> that's<01:03:10.920><
• then part of that base plus minus budget then part of that base plus minus budget process<01:14:

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a reduction from the existing operating budget.
• The governor's budget proposal has largely remained unchanged.
• It makes changes to our current fiscal year operating budgets.
• operating budgets based on projected needs.
• The ancillary bill appropriates funding to 11 budget units.

Summary: Senate Finance met on May 21, 2026, with nine members present. The committee first recognized Mother Pearl Porter during a personal privilege presentation by Senator Boudreaux. It then took up the major budget measures for fiscal year 2026-27, beginning with HB 1, the general appropriation bill. The committee heard that the state budget was about $46.6 billion and that recent Revenue Estimating Conference revisions required reductions in recurring spending. Amendments removed new funding for GATOR and increased MFP amounts, while also directing Revenue Stabilization Fund dollars toward infrastructure, economic development, and local government needs. The committee adopted amendment set 4238 and reported HB 1 as amended, with authority for technical changes. The committee next considered HB 312, the supplemental appropriations bill for the current fiscal year. Members were told the amendments balanced the budget to the May REC forecast through a net reduction in state general fund spending, including savings in Medicaid and other agencies, while covering updated costs such as medical vendor administration, DCFS operations, DOC offender medical expenses, and disaster-related costs. Amendment set 4239 was adopted, and HB 312 was reported favorably as amended. HB 2, the capital outlay/infrastructure bill, was then amended with set 4230 and reported as amended. HB 3, the omnibus bond act authorizing bond usage for HB 2, had no amendments and was reported favorably. The committee also advanced HB 313, the funds bill, which includes the constitutionally required deposit of $144.3 million of FY 2025 surplus into the Budget Stabilization Fund and various transfers and fund adjustments. Amendments expanded or created several funds and mechanisms, including infrastructure and economic development-related funds, and HB 313 was reported favorably as amended. HB 314, the revenue sharing bill distributing the constitutionally mandated $90 million to local governments, was reported favorably without amendment. HB 383, the ancillary appropriations bill for fee-supported agencies, received amendment 3138 and was reported favorably as amended. HB 983, funding the judiciary, was amended to remove judicial pay adjustments and instead fund a possible transfer of the integrated criminal justice information system to the Supreme Court if SB 141 becomes law; it was reported favorably as amended. HB 1126, the legislative branch appropriations bill, was amended and reported favorably as amended. Finally, HCR 3, the hospital stabilization resolution used to support Medicaid hospital reimbursements, was amended to give LDH more flexibility on the timing of directed payments and preprint submissions, then reported as amended. The committee adjourned after a motion to do so.

Transcript Highlights:

• The governor's budget does propose the dam safety backfill to provide budget resiliency.
• The proposed budget, as you'll see in the materials from the Prop 4 funds, allocates $7.5 million to
• this budget year.
• It's zero-based budgeting.
• The issue of whether we allocate all this bond funding is the same issue regarding out-year allocations

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Allocation presented in Section 1. We have a second.
• That allocation is for $10,000.
• change in the amount allocated.
• This allocation continues on through page 11, at the bottom of page 11, line 59, for a proposed allocation
• This allocation continues on through page 11, at the bottom of page 11, line 59, for a proposed allocation

Summary: The Joint Finance Committee met to review and vote on the fiscal year 2027 Grants and Aid Act, which was expected to be pre-filed as Senate Bill 337. Members first reviewed Section 1, covering county seat payments, paramedic operations, senior center allocations, senior center transportation, and Homeland Security grants. They approved Section 1 after discussion of how senior center transportation is being moved from DART to grant-in-aid and how some organizations can appear in both the senior center formula and the general aging category. The committee then worked through Section 2, which included one-time appropriations and the various grant categories for aging, arts/historical/recreation, economic housing or labor services, family and youth services, health or disability services, and neighborhood and community services. Members discussed several specific items, including New Castle County reassessment-related funding, Friends of Cooch’s Bridge, Slaughter Neck Community Action Organization, Plastic-Free Delaware, Love, Inc. of the Delmarva, and the Southern Delaware Horse Retirement Association. One aging line for Slaughter Neck was reduced back to flat funding after members questioned a large increase, and the revised category total was adjusted accordingly. Each of the Section 2 subcategories was then adopted. Section 3, covering fire companies and public service ambulance companies, was approved with increases across apparatus, ambulance, rescue truck, aerial truck, rescue boat, substation, and insurance rebate equalization funding. Section 4, for veterans organizations and youth programs such as Boys State, Girls State, and Trooper Youth Week, was also adopted. The committee then approved the epilogue sections, which included eligibility, audit, payment, and reporting rules; special provisions for the Wilmington Senior Center contingency; conditions tied to several one-time appropriations; withholding funding from Merri-Dell Volunteer Fire Company pending a corrective report; and reprogramming $1,485,000 from a prior SMART food program appropriation toward SNAP/WIC-related food access initiatives. The meeting ended with remarks thanking staff and noting that it was likely the last JFC meeting for two members, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• So once the appropriation has been made in the state budget, then we know the model is used to allocate
• But is it used ahead of the budgeting process? Is it used to allocate that out?
• There's a budget. ...report that there was a budget.
• There's a budget. ...report that there was a budget.
• budget, right, and a budget request for next year.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The committee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on OSPI’s school apportionment system, which distributes K-12 funding to districts. Auditors said the system and its underlying 2008-era infrastructure are outdated, unstable, inefficient, and at high risk of errors or failure. They also found weak controls over data input, documentation, oversight, and monitoring, with heavy reliance on a small number of staff and vendor knowledge. In limited testing of three districts, the system calculated 2023–24 funding correctly, but auditors identified small discrepancies between state budget inputs and underlying statutory language and said broader system risks remain unresolved. JLARC members asked about the scope of the district testing, whether smaller districts face greater risk, the meaning of the funding discrepancies, and whether the system could support a future change to a simpler per-student funding formula. Auditors said the discrepancies were small but could compound into millions statewide, and that the audit did not evaluate broader policy questions or alternative system owners. They recommended OSPI modernize or replace the system and address current control weaknesses while the new platform is developed. OSPI officials largely agreed that the current platform needs replacement and said a feasibility study completed in 2024 found the system at catastrophic risk of failure. They clarified that the Legislature had approved up to $16 million in the state IT pool for the project, but that funding is released through gated oversight and not all of it had yet been appropriated for the current biennium. OSPI disputed the auditor’s characterization of some rounding and budget-law issues, saying the calculations were consistent with agency rules and legislative inputs, and explained that some manual workarounds are used to handle newer statutory requirements. One member of the public testified in support of modernizing the system and strengthening controls. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• As the chair of the Budget Subcommittee that oversees GGRF, to see that oversee GGRF allocations, I want
• Well, thank you to our budget chair.
• We did not look at the, again, the CARB doesn't play a role in the budget process and dedicating budget
• You are not in charge of the budget.
• There's a small portion that's allocated every year based on the budget and the negotiations.

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:

• The Governor's budget does propose the dam safety backfill to provide budget resiliency.
• and you keep pulling out of the budget.
• It's zero-based budgeting.
• It's zero-based budgeting.
• The issue as to whether we allocate all this bond funding, same issue about out-year allocations, et

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on water and coastal resilience heard an overview of the governor’s Proposition 4 spending plan, with presentations from the Department of Finance, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and later coastal agencies. Members discussed the water chapter’s major allocations for drinking water and wastewater, recycled water, tribal water infrastructure, groundwater recharge and SGMA implementation, dam safety, flood protection, integrated regional water management, Salton Sea projects, and water data/stream gauges. The LAO noted that many programs are established and have clear funding processes, but some newer or less-defined programs may warrant more detailed future budget requests and reporting. No votes were taken on the agenda items. Members raised concerns about groundwater subsidence, water deliveries from the Delta, the pace of water storage investments, instream flows, and whether bond dollars were being used to backfill General Fund reductions. Administration witnesses said groundwater recharge spending is being paced because prior years already funded substantial SGMA work, that Delta operations are governed by water quality, salinity, and species requirements, and that Proposition 1 storage projects have moved slowly because they are locally led and require permitting and financing. The Water Board and DWR said they use public needs assessments, annual plans, and existing grant processes to prioritize projects, and Finance said some General Fund programs were shifted to Proposition 4 to help balance the budget. Members also asked for clearer public tracking of bond spending and more concise future reporting. In the coastal resilience portion, the Ocean Protection Council and Coastal Conservancy described Proposition 4 funding for sea level rise adaptation, coastal flood management, habitat restoration, public access, and San Francisco Bay projects, with a multi-year rollout based on project readiness and recent large state investments. The Conservancy said it would use its existing rolling grant process, while OPC said its sea level rise grants would build on existing programs and new technical assistance. The Department of Fish and Wildlife explained its proposed use of bond funds for climate-ready fisheries, hatchery modernization, salmon monitoring, whale- and turtle-safe fishing gear, and a specific hatchery operations request tied to the Friant settlement. The LAO said the coastal chapter’s proposed first-year spending is relatively modest but generally reasonable given staffing and project readiness, while members emphasized oversight, transparency, and coordination across agencies and jurisdictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee will come to order. Santa, please call the roll.
• And I'll just add that the money that we've appropriated specifically in this allocation in the budget
• It's just one part of the budget of the school district.
• And I know they use much more than we put forth in this specific allocation.
• my budget recommendations to Chair McClure and the budget committee.

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met with a quorum present and focused primarily on the classroom teacher and other instructional personnel salary increase allocation. The chair reviewed how the recurring allocation, first established in fiscal year 2021, has grown to $1.4 billion and was intended to help districts and charter schools raise minimum base teacher salaries to at least $47,500. The chair noted that districts must submit distribution plans and annual expenditure reports, and said six districts were still at impasse for the current year, with a possible seventh. The chair presented data showing the allocation’s impact over five years: only one district met the $47,500 minimum in 2021, while 54 of 67 districts did so by the end of fiscal year 2024-25. Liberty County’s minimum base salary rose from $32,237 to $44,155, and several districts saw increases of roughly $14,000 to $19,000. Members also noted that some districts remain just below the target and may have reached it after the latest funding increase. Members discussed concerns about salary compression and veteran teachers, with Ranking Member Gantt saying experienced teachers often earn only slightly more than new hires and asking for more data on the issue. The chair responded that the allocation can be used not only for starting salaries but also, in some years, for broader compensation increases and raises for teachers with two or more years of experience. Representative Nix asked about a possible study on compression, and Representative Daniels emphasized that the committee should recognize the progress already made while continuing to improve teacher pay. The meeting then briefly turned to fiscal year 2026-27 budget issues, and the chair said budget recommendations had been submitted before the committee adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have $6 million for the hip-hop museum allocated in this budget.
• WE HAVE $6 MILLION FOR THE HIP-HOP MUSEUM ALLOCATED IN THIS BUDGET.
• Through you, I'm trying to determine how much money is allocated in the budget for Restore?
• allocating for this year's budget?"
• Could you tell me how much money is allocated for the V-Fire grants in this year's budget?"

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and an invocation, then approved the prior day’s Journal and moved into motions, resolutions, and budget-related business. Senator Gianaris called up Senate Print 5898A for reconsideration; the Senate voted 59 ayes to restore the bill to the third reading calendar. Several amendments were also received on third-reading bills, and the Finance Committee was called into session while the chamber proceeded with resolutions. The Senate adopted Resolution J.2106 recognizing Second Chance Month and the mental health impacts of incarceration, with Senator Brisport speaking in support and a guest from the community recognized in the chamber. The body also adopted Resolution J.1492 designating May 27, 2026, as Taiwan Heritage Day, with remarks from Senators Sepúlveda, Stavisky, and Liu highlighting Taiwanese contributions to New York and expressing support for Taiwan amid current geopolitical tensions. The Finance Committee then reported several budget bills, including Senate Prints 9003D, 9004D, 9007C, and 9009C, which were moved to third reading. The remainder of the session focused on the supplemental and controversial budget calendars, especially tax and spending provisions. Senators debated the “Protecting Our Wallets” energy rebate, with supporters describing it as a one-time check for eligible taxpayers and critics arguing it was too small and not tied directly to utility bills; the chamber accepted the message of necessity and laid the bills aside. Members also debated extensions and changes to tax provisions affecting corporations, alternative fuel exemptions, Broadway and theatrical production tax credits, charitable deductions for certain 501(c)(3)s, nicotine pouch taxes, a new New York City pied-à-terre tax, and a standardbred horse-racing testing fee. Several senators criticized the budget as raising costs or favoring certain industries, while supporters defended the measures as revenue-raising, affordability, or public-health policies. No final votes on the controversial budget bills are shown in the excerpt beyond procedural rulings, adoption of the resolution calendar, and acceptance of committee reports.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, this is the budget.
• Again, we don't base our budget off of CPI or cost of living, and the base allocation increased by $85
• And what is the increase from last year's allocation to this year's allocation?
• And then lastly, I just want to talk about the budget, not the budget, the vouchers.
• And who won with this budget?

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You can see their budget.
• Base budget. So what's the difference between the base budget and what we're just talking about?
• So that drops out of the budget.
• To manage their budget, sometimes it's the teacher money that's taken to fund something else in the budget
• Out of the $1.45 million budget that we have, 92.7% of my budget is salaries. Okay, thank you.

Summary: The committee held its first meeting and received an overview of the Pre-K-12 education appropriations jurisdiction and base budget. Staff explained that education funding is driven largely by enrollment and per-student formulas, with most money coming from state and local sources. The presentation highlighted the major budget areas: early learning, the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP), non-FEFP K-12 programs, federal programs, and the State Board of Education. Members asked about instructional materials funding and how scholarship students who return to public schools are counted and funded; staff explained that instructional materials remain in the base and that funding depends on survey timing, with districts ultimately funded through the enrollment count process. The committee then reviewed federal IDEA funding for students with disabilities. Department of Education officials explained how IDEA Part B funds are split between state set-asides and local educational agencies, and noted that Florida ranked fourth nationally in total IDEA Part B funding and received a 95% state determination for meeting IDEA requirements. They also described the bureau’s responsibilities, including monitoring, dispute resolution, instructional support, and the Hope Florida unit for ages 3 to 5. Members asked for more information on student performance outcomes and how the state measures success beyond compliance, and the department agreed to provide follow-up data. The final major topic was the Florida Diagnostic and Learning Resources System (FDLRS), including associate centers, multidisciplinary centers, and specialized centers for deaf/hard of hearing and visually impaired students. Presenters described services such as child find, family support, assessments, professional learning, accessible instructional materials, and technical assistance. Committee members focused on whether families and schools have equal access to services across the state, how IEP disputes and reevaluations are handled, and whether more support is needed for parents, teachers, and rural districts. FDLRS representatives said they do not write IEPs but help connect families to districts, provide training and assessments, and support compliance and data collection; they also emphasized staffing and resource needs, especially for low-incidence disabilities and multilingual family outreach.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:04.200> it 10% of our state's education budget it 10% of our state's education budget
• have as we try to put together a budget have as we try to put together a budget that<00:03:39.360
• students um you'll see the allocation students um you'll see the allocation there<00:51:37.400><
• budgets.
• budget how many versions of the budget budget how many versions of the budget are<01:16:05.159><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee met to hear a Minnesota Department of Education presentation on federal education funding and the potential effects of federal actions on those dollars. Chair Kunesh framed the discussion around concerns about threats to the U.S. Department of Education and noted that federal funds make up about 10% of Minnesota’s education budget, or roughly $1.4 billion. Senator Lang pushed back, emphasizing that 90% of school funding comes from state and local sources and urging the committee to focus on state mandates and how to pay for them. New member Senator Clark introduced himself and said he would teach ethics or running if he were a teacher. Department staff explained that federal education dollars are divided between entitlement/formula funds and competitive/discretionary grants. They said Minnesota receives federal money through established systems and that the department is seeking clarity about how federal changes might affect the flow of funds, oversight, and program administration. They also outlined Minnesota’s legislative review process for federal funds, which includes several pathways such as the governor’s biennial budget, supplemental budget submissions, legislative advisory committee review, and expedited review processes when needed. The presentation then focused on ESEA Title funding, especially Title I. Staff said Title I is one of the largest federal education programs in Minnesota, with about $200 million in current funding, and supports 476 local education agencies. They described how funds are allocated through Minnesota’s North Star accountability system and Compass support structure, based on measures such as poverty, graduation rates, and state assessment performance. Examples of allowable supports included professional development, attendance initiatives, reading curriculum, training, and peer coaching. Senators asked whether executive action could affect these funds and whether the money flows directly to districts or through the state; staff responded that they would avoid speculation and would continue explaining the different funding streams and oversight structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• through the annual budget act.
• So I understand in other ways in the budget we've done, you know, three-year-out allocations, so other
• So first, there's, in terms of how you allocate it, you can allocate it statutorily either...
• First, there's, in terms of how you allocate it, you can allocate it statutorily, either on a continuously
• local costs within local budgets.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Assembly Budget Committee.
• . for budget as well as at the Governor's budget.
• Is this allocation paying back that loan? This allocation is not paying back that loan.
• allocation.
• So we're actually not just 1,000 percent over budget; we're 1,000 plus percent over budget on the...

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of the budget.
• And the funding that generates fully allocated to the K-12 side of the budget, but on the TK issue, we
• of Management and Budget presented to... ...of the actual budget that the Office of Management and Budget
• That's why we should support this allocation, even in this challenging budget cycle.
• We hope that even in these difficult budget times this small request can be allocated to keep this important

Summary: The committee heard the May Revision presentation for the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, with public comment focused heavily on K-12 priorities such as universal school meals, kitchen infrastructure, food service and custodial support, youth leadership grants, Special Olympics funding, English learner support, universal pre-K, literacy investments, and concerns about community college funding shifts. Speakers also urged support for expanded learning, teacher recruitment and training, and maintaining or increasing funding for community colleges and student support programs. Finance and the LAO then reviewed the Proposition 98 outlook. Finance said the May Revision lowers the 2025-26 Prop. 98 guarantee to $114.6 billion, about $4.3 billion below January, due mainly to lower revenue estimates, with smaller effects from attendance and property tax changes. The administration also described rebenching for universal transitional kindergarten and a one-time rebench tied to Los Angeles fire-related property tax losses, along with changes to the Public School System Stabilization Account, deferrals, and updated COLA assumptions. The LAO said the budget relies too much on deferrals and one-time funds, creates a structural shortfall, and should instead align ongoing spending with the guarantee and preserve a reserve buffer. Members questioned the TK rebench and the shift of funding from community colleges to K-12, asking why it was being applied retroactively and how colleges would be held harmless. Finance said the changes align funding with where TK costs are being incurred and that reappropriation funding and other adjustments would offset impacts on community colleges. The LAO argued the historical split formula is outdated and should be abandoned in favor of budgeting around current priorities rather than fixed percentages. Members also raised concerns about draining the rainy day reserve and using deferrals, while the LAO said preserving reserves would better protect against future volatility. The committee then moved to specific K-12 and education proposals. Finance outlined May Revision changes including state operations adjustments for the Department of Education, technical trailer bill changes, a $100 million student teacher stipend program administered by Kern County, and updates to the charter school facility grant program. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposed increases for expanded learning, literacy coaches, and the student teacher stipend as currently structured, while supporting the minimum grant increase for expanded learning. Members expressed support for teacher recruitment efforts but questioned whether one-time funding can sustain ongoing programs and whether the student teacher stipend should be targeted to shortage areas or low-income communities.

Transcript Highlights:

• How many of those are budgeted or not budgeted?” “Those 12 are budgeted.
• How many of those are budgeted or not budgeted? Those 12 are budgeted.
• And we budget positions—we're budgeting the positions we're allocated and the funding we have to budget
• positions, we're budgeting the positions we're allocated and the funding we have to budget, but sometimes
• budget?

Summary: The committee heard a series of Arkansas Department of Human Services budget presentations and questions, beginning with the Secretary’s Office and then the Division of Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health Services. Staff described the divisions’ appropriations, funding sources, and major programs, including senior centers, Meals on Wheels, mental health grants, substance abuse treatment, community alcohol safety, the Medicaid tobacco settlement program, and crisis stabilization units. Members raised concerns about flat or limited funding for senior services, the use and tracing of federal block grants, the lack of a funding source for the veterans’ mental health grant, and the mechanics of the community alcohol safety and treatment programs. The committee also discussed patient benefits funds at state facilities, transportation for senior center clients, and whether some special-language appropriations or fund balances should be revisited. Executive recommendations were adopted for the divisions considered. The committee then reviewed the Division of Children and Family Services and the Division of County Operations. Questions focused on foster care growth, adoption subsidies, professional fees tied to staff training and onboarding, vacancies, the Children’s Trust Fund, and TANF subgrants. Members asked about the reduction or elimination of TANF funding to child advocacy centers and other subgrantees, and DHS explained that prior reserves had been spent down and that the department was now trying to live within the annual TANF block grant and rebuild reserves. County operations questions also covered summer EBT, SNAP employment and training, the farmers’ market program, and the expected impact of a federal SNAP administrative match change, which DHS estimated would increase state costs by about $24 million annually, with roughly $18 million affecting the current year because the change begins October 1. Executive recommendations were again adopted. Finally, the committee heard from the Division of Developmental Disability Services and the Division of Medical Services. DDS testimony covered vacancies, staffing shortages, human development center construction and repairs, the reopening of the Boonville work training program, and funding for infant infirmary and child/family life programs. Medical Services testimony covered the Medicaid program, the current FMAP rate, the Our Kids B CHIP program, Medicaid payments to schools, nursing home distress funding, and large appropriation lines used to provide flexibility for claims and potential facility closures. Members asked for more detail on school Medicaid payments, reserve balances, and why some appropriations were much larger than actual spending. In each division, the committee moved and adopted Executive REC after questions concluded.