Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's close to about 7% of their total operating revenue.
• Revenue stabilization?
• I know that LOFT recently was given the statutory authority to create that calculation, and I was just
• The reason why I asked the question is the revenue stabilization fund is a statutory fund.
• This is not a revenue failure.

Bills: SB1177 , SB1177

Committee: House Joint Committee on Appropriations and Budget

Keywords: education funding, mental health services, public safety, housing, state budget, 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This change does not affect any tax revenues for the state, and the Department of Revenue has officially
• </c><00:02:31.840><c> of</c> 295.27 8% tax on the gross revenues of 295.27 8% tax on the gross revenues
• </c><00:04:43.000><c> I</c> without impacting state tax revenues I without impacting state tax revenues
• Revenue estimated that that change would Revenue estimated that that change would result<00:52:44.119
• Department of Revenue and that document Department of Revenue and that document actually<01:19:02.199

Committee: House Taxes

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Stephanie Scharden Clark, the Cabinet Secretary of the Taxation and Revenue Department.
• The rounding method calculation... and payments of taxes to the appropriate jurisdictions in cash.
• The rounding method calculation The rounding method calculation for the in-transactional amount should
• It's in Chapter 9 in the Taxation and Revenue Department's Enabling Act.
• You only pay the Taxation and Revenue Department once.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 108, which amends the Watershed District Act to fix a problem created by last year’s changes: appointed watershed district boards could not legally levy taxes, even though several districts already had mill levies. The sponsor and staff explained the bill would preserve the existing tax authority by tying it to the soil and water district responsible for the watershed district. There was no public opposition, and the committee voted do pass on HB 108 as amended. The committee then heard House Bill 154, a tax credit bill intended to decouple New Mexico’s Advanced Energy Equipment Tax Credit from changing federal definitions and to add fusion machines and related components to the state definition. Supporters from economic development, industry, utilities, and education argued the bill would provide certainty, attract advanced manufacturing, and help New Mexico compete for investment without changing the credit’s caps or fiscal impact. Members questioned why hydrogen, geothermal, and small modular reactors were not included; staff said those technologies were not in the federal definition and that adding them now could create unintended consequences. The committee voted do pass on HB 154, with one member voting reluctantly yes. House Bill 291, the Taxation and Revenue Department’s annual tax code cleanup bill, was then presented and amended twice. The first amendment preserved New Mexico’s independent definition of qualified research for the tech jobs and R&D credit. The second removed a proposed expansion of the film tax credit to certain tribal expenditures after concerns about fiscal impact; members discussed possible future approaches for tribal film activity and the film partner loophole. The bill also makes technical and policy changes including rounding certain payments to the nearest nickel, waiving interest when tax deadlines are extended for good cause, removing small late-filing penalties in some cases, allowing delinquent taxpayers to renew permits under installment agreements, intercepting excess delinquent property tax auction proceeds for other state tax debts, clarifying tobacco tax treatment for larger vape cartridges, and tightening film credit rules. After public opposition from business groups and discussion from members, the committee voted do pass on HB 291 as twice amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Gras, on top of the Department of Revenue, what the Department of Revenue did with the assumption of
• So that's how the Department of Revenue addressed getting around that portion.
• So, again, the Department of Revenue didn't do anything wrong. Let me just say that.
• The Department of Revenue always assumes that. Please explain above the line. Right.
• the Department of Revenue, I’m not aware that it’s ever happened.

Summary: The caucus focused on HB 2153, a tax conformity bill that would align Arizona tax law with the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026, including retroactive provisions for tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bill excludes three federal provisions: the additional $6,000 senior deduction, the higher SALT deduction, and the deduction for interest on new car loans. It also adds several Arizona-specific changes, including a $6,000 deduction for certain retirement distributions for taxpayers 65 and older, a $6,000 deduction for Roth IRA contributions, an increase in the dependent tax credit from $100 to $125, and a deduction for child and dependent care expenses above the federal credit. JLBC estimated a negative fiscal impact of $441.3 million in the first year, declining over the next two years. Chairman Livingston argued the bill was needed immediately because the Department of Revenue had already issued tentative forms assuming full conformity, creating confusion for taxpayers and businesses. He said the governor’s earlier direction and the department’s forms were not coordinated with the legislature’s approach, and warned taxpayers and businesses not to file until the issue was resolved. He also said the bill would help small businesses by preventing mismatched state and federal rules, especially on deductions and vehicle expensing, and emphasized that many Arizona businesses would otherwise face two sets of books. Members asked about the practical impact on small businesses and the department’s forms. Livingston and staff said Arizona has about 700,000 small businesses, most with 19 or fewer employees, and that the department’s forms largely reflected full conformity except for a worksheet tied to the governor’s requested changes. Staff explained the difference between “simple conformity” and “full conformity,” noting that some federal provisions occur “below the line” and require explicit state law. The committee also discussed the child care provisions as a new Arizona deduction and a separate increase in the child care credit. No vote was taken, and the meeting adjourned before floor session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then we issue checks based on the revenue share calculations.
• So I did a calculation and I calculated a worst-case scenario, and then admittedly I added 10%.
• ><00:22:15.760><c> a</c><00:22:16.000><c> worst</c> calculation and I calculated a worst calculation
• </c> Um that's not what the calculation was. Um that's not what the calculation was.
• So that's my calculation: $297,000 per unit. That's my calculation: $297,000 per unit.

Keywords: 0:00:07 Call to Order and Roll Call 0:00:47 Approval of Minutes 0:01:05 Correspondence and Information Items 0:54:15 Lease Rpt from Postsecondary Institutions 0:56:19 Project Rpt from Finance and Administration Cabinet 1:08:46 Lease Rpt from Finance and Administration Cabinet 1:13:00 Rpt from Office of Financial Mgmt - KIA 1:20:00 Office of Financial Management 1:35:50 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The meeting began with routine business, including welcoming new committee member Senator Reginald Thomas, approving the minutes, and receiving a correspondence report on several information items. Those items included University of Kentucky research equipment funding, UK capital project funding using federal/private funds, debt issues from McGoffin County and Owen County school districts, lease modifications by the Division of Real Properties, asset preservation project revisions at Eastern Kentucky University and Northern Kentucky University, and Kentucky Communications Network Authority (KCNA) information on Kentucky Wired critical infrastructure. The main discussion focused on a dispute over the Kentucky Wired communication shelters, or “huts,” and related payments under KCNA’s agreement with Asellicom/Excel. Brad Kilby of Asellicom testified that KCNA had not paid for the huts, that Asellicom had not received the alleged $8 million or any later payment, and that Asellicom remained the legal owner. Committee members pressed him on whether payment had been received, whether anyone else might have received it, and whether the lawsuit or dispute resolution process clarified the issue. Kilby said no payment had been received and that the matter was part of ongoing litigation. KCNA Executive Director Doug Hendricks and General Counsel Adam Atkins then testified. They said a certified check for $8.5 million was mailed in July, based on the Finance and Administration Cabinet secretary’s determination that $8.5 million was due under the model procurement code, even though KCNA had initially requested about $12 million to cover a worst-case estimate. They said the contract allowed payment in full or in tranches, that the huts were completed and operational, and that KCNA had not received documentation supporting Asellicom’s higher $10.1 million claim. Members expressed frustration over the missing check and the broader implications for Kentucky Wired, and one member requested that the committee obtain all agency requests related to KCNA/Kentucky Wired since inception; the co-chairs said they would look into making that information available. No formal vote was taken on the dispute during the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And why revenue for recapture is considered in the per pupil funding that you're describing.
• Do you foresee any changes in that in that calculation at all?
• Slide four is the revenue picture that school districts receive.
• In the long run, school districts. cannot spend more than the revenue they receive.
• This is the revenue they receive. No, they can't. They're actually in deficits, but yeah.

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: committee meeting, legislation, public testimony, discussion, procedural

Summary: The meeting covered various topics, but specific discussions and bills were not detailed in the available transcript. Despite the lack of documented debates or acknowledgments, it was noted that committee members were present, and there may have been attempts to address crucial legislative matters. The dynamics of the meeting suggested a standard procedural gathering where routine insights were likely shared among the attendees.

Transcript Highlights:

• the general restrictions around increased revenues.
• And so significant loss in revenue.
• They are more than 40% of our net revenues.
• And we are asking for long-term, sustainable revenue solutions.
• raising new revenues to backfill the cuts to Medicaid.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It is 8:30, and the Revenue and Tax Committee was scheduled to meet. We are called to order.
• homeowners exemptions and property sales is where this issue deals with as far as how those are calculated
• Property sales is where this issue deals with as far as how those are calculated moving forward.
• it, so I think it was last year or the year before we attempted to Calculate it.
• House Revenue and Taxation stands adjourned. favor say aye. Any opposed nay? That motion carries.

Summary: The House Revenue and Taxation Committee met on March 6, 2026, and first approved the minutes from its March 2 and March 3 meetings. The committee then heard RS 33625 from Speaker Moyle, who said it was intended to address property tax issues in fast-growing areas by allowing taxing districts to use the prior year’s mill levy rate, raising the cap from 8% to 15% for cities under 30,000 and related EMS/fire districts, ending future foregone balances while allowing a larger current capture of existing foregone, and giving voters a way to use the initiative process to lower city or county budgets. After brief questions about the population threshold, the committee voted to introduce the RS. The committee next took up RS 3357, which Representative Monks presented on behalf of Representative Manwaring. Monks said the proposal concerns how the homeowners exemption is calculated when property sales occur, and would remove the current proration requirement because counties and assessors have found it difficult and inconsistent to administer. He said counties and assessors had been consulted and preferred this version. The committee voted to introduce RS 3357 as well. RS 3357 had initially been held because the sponsor was unavailable, but the committee agreed to proceed with Monks presenting it. Members also clarified that RS 33625 was public once introduced. The chair announced there would be no committee meeting on Monday and adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• the general restrictions around increased revenues.
• And so, significant loss in revenue.
• County mentioned, including revenue opportunities where available.
• They are more than 40% of our net revenues.
• And we are asking for long-term, sustainable revenue solutions.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services heard an overview of the expected California budget and program impacts from H.R. 1, including changes to Medi-Cal and CalFresh eligibility, redeterminations, work requirements, immigration-related coverage rules, retroactive coverage limits, and reductions in federal matching for certain services and provider financing mechanisms. DHCS and CDSS described implementation plans focused on automation, data matching, clearer communications, county training, and outreach, while noting that many federal details are still pending. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also reviewed how H.R. 1 could increase pressure on county indigent care systems, explaining the history of county responsibility under Section 17000, 1991 realignment, and AB 85, and warning that counties may face large increases in uninsured residents seeking care without corresponding funding flexibility. An independent policy expert urged consideration of a more standardized statewide approach to indigent care and raised questions about governance, benefits, and financing. Department witnesses estimated substantial coverage losses and fiscal effects: DHCS projected major Medi-Cal disenrollment tied to work requirements, six-month renewals, narrowed immigrant eligibility, and reduced retroactive coverage, while CDSS estimated large CalFresh benefit losses and a significant increase in administrative workload and payment accuracy pressure. Members questioned how exemptions would work for older adults, people experiencing homelessness, undocumented residents, and cash workers, and asked about the effect on the CalFresh Minimum Nutrition Benefit Pilot and on county administrative funding. Officials said they would use available data and self-attestation where possible, but acknowledged that many cases would require manual screening and that the county workload estimates remain in dispute. They also said the state is still evaluating the impact of H.R. 1 on provider taxes and state-directed payments, which could create additional budget pressure. County representatives from Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Tulare, and San Bernardino described major local consequences if H.R. 1 is implemented as written. They warned of higher uninsured rates, more strain on emergency rooms and public hospitals, increased homelessness and food insecurity, and a likely need to rebuild or expand county indigent care programs that were largely scaled back after the ACA. Counties said they are already freezing hiring, cutting positions, reducing overtime, deferring spending, and launching outreach and coordination efforts with managed care plans and community partners, but argued that these steps are not enough without additional state support. Several counties backed the California County Welfare Directors Association’s request for $373 million in General Fund support for eligibility work and asked for a CalFresh match waiver to soften the new county share of administrative costs; Los Angeles and Santa Clara also emphasized that their local revenue measures would not close the projected gaps. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then they can calculate the full base, and it's crazy.
• Then they can calculate the full base, and it's crazy.
• Then they can calculate the full base, and it's crazy.
• Then they can calculate the full base, and it's crazy.
• Then they can calculate the full base, and it's crazy.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• under this language as a hold harmless for the entire district revenue rather than the site revenue,
• into its component parts: compensatory revenue and English learner revenue.
• rather than the entire district revenue rather than the site<00:02:46.000><c> revenue.
• This language um revenue.
• </c> out compensatory revenue modifications. out compensatory revenue modifications.

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair members of the committee, you will see that for other transfers, federal revenues, and other revenues
• So overall, this is a general fund decrease, but a total revenue increase.
• Both recommendations actually increase funding from other revenues.
• can be off, the LFC benefit calculation can be off.
• decrease federal revenues.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The committee first heard an Aging and Long-Term Services Department budget presentation comparing the LFC and executive recommendations. The main differences were in the Aging Network, Adult Protective Services, Program Support, and Long-Term Care Division, especially the executive’s proposed $10 million infusion into the Kiki Savadra Senior Dignity Fund and $6.2 million for expanding New Mexico Care. LFC staff explained that the committee recommendation was lower in general fund and fund-balance use, while the executive emphasized rising senior population needs, meal and transportation costs, and the cost savings of keeping older adults at home. The secretary also reviewed the department’s special requests, including the conference on aging, outreach, emergency preparedness, and the Kiki fund, and described New Mexico Care’s growth, its evaluation results, and the department’s plan to separate Kiki into its own accounting fund. Members largely focused on senior services, rural meal delivery, transportation, caregiver support, and the Kiki fund. Several members urged stronger support for non-metro aging providers and for New Mexico Care, citing its role in keeping seniors out of nursing homes and the program’s reported savings and outcomes. Questions also covered eligibility, background checks for caregivers, respite care, dementia and Alzheimer’s screening, and whether Kiki funds can support home modifications such as ramps. The committee then voted to adopt the LFC recommendation with one executive language change: adding the executive’s page 14 language allowing an additional 12.5% distribution for initial payments to aging network providers at the start of FY27. Representative Dow opposed the motion. The committee then moved to the Attorney General’s budget. LFC staff explained that the office’s budget relies heavily on the Consumer Settlement Fund, with both recommendations reducing general fund revenue while increasing settlement-fund use, and that performance measures were in consensus. The Attorney General said the office was not seeking more general fund, but wanted greater ability to use funds it recovers. He highlighted major consumer and public safety work, including litigation against major social media and AI platforms, a case involving Snapchat and child exploitation/extortion, the statewide crime gun intelligence center, efforts to address oilfield theft, work on missing and murdered Indigenous persons, and efforts to protect federal funds coming into New Mexico.

Transcript Highlights:

• modifies state appropriation to Western to create funding parity by establishing a methodology to calculate
• The calculation requires the carry-forward-level funding average from state accounts to be divided by
• That's total resources per student when you combine tuition into the calculation.
• And that's total resources per student when you combine tuition into the calculation.
• The calculation assumes we’ll always use our full tuition authority.

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on House Bill 2070, which would create state funding parity for Western Washington University by tying appropriations to a per-student funding ratio. The prime sponsor and Western officials said Western has long been the lowest-funded public four-year institution on a per-student basis, leading to budget cuts, reduced student services, and delayed graduation. Students, faculty, and university leaders testified in support, while some members questioned whether the bill should instead address a broader higher-education funding formula for all institutions. Central Washington University also supported the bill but suggested a broader approach. No vote was taken on HB 2070. The committee then heard House Bill 2671, which would expand eligibility for state financial aid to certain nonprofit out-of-state branch campuses operating in Washington if they meet specified accreditation, duration, and authorization requirements. Rep. Timmons said the bill is intended to help students in an accelerated nursing program at Northeastern University in Seattle access aid and support workforce needs. Northeastern’s dean testified in support, saying the bill would align financial aid law with prior changes to degree-granting statutes and would not increase state spending. The hearing on HB 2671 was then closed. House Bill 2617, dealing with the higher-education “fund split,” drew extensive testimony. The bill would gradually shift more of employee compensation increases and central services costs to state funding, and would require a study of essential student services. The sponsor and many university, faculty, staff, and student witnesses argued that the current funding practice shifts costs to tuition, contributes to layoffs, program cuts, larger classes, and reduced student support, and creates instability across public higher education. Community and technical college representatives also said underfunding COLAs harms operations and students. The committee then moved to executive session on Senate Bill 6258, which would authorize the Washington Medical Commission to create a non-disciplinary pathway for voluntary license relinquishment; the committee approved it 14-0 with a due-pass recommendation, with three members excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• cases, the outlook assumes the greater of revenue growth of 4.5% or the actual projected ERFC revenue
• There may also be changes to revenues or new revenue sources.
• fund revenues.
• That is revenues and resources.
• That is revenues and resources. Again, what do policymakers have to That is revenues and resources.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative-Executive Committee on Budget Transparency and Fiscal Sustainability

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> our spending in FY 2627 exceeds revenues our spending in FY 2627 exceeds revenues this<00:05:14.280
• <00:19:03.720><c> this</c> changes in the revenue outlook for this changes in the revenue outlook for
• </c> let's turn now to the revenue let's turn now to the revenue forecast<00:20:01.799><c> the</c><00
• </c> anticipated spending growth and revenue anticipated spending growth and revenue do<00:37:30.240>
• </c> have to take spending and revenues have to take spending and revenues together<00:42:38.400><c>

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Minnesota Management and Budget presented the February 2025 budget and economic forecast, with Commissioner Aon Campbell, State Economist Anthony Becker, and Budget Director Anam Mingi outlining updated revenue, spending, and long-term balance projections. The state’s FY 2026-27 general fund outlook remains positive but weaker than in November, with an ending balance of $456 million, down $160 million from the prior forecast. Looking ahead, the planning years FY 2028-29 show a projected deficit of just under $6 billion, driven largely by spending growth outpacing revenues. Officials emphasized that discretionary inflation is a major factor in the forecast, but also noted that those amounts are not automatically appropriated and would require legislative action. Becker said the national outlook has changed since November, with higher expected inflation, higher interest rates for longer, and slower growth in later years. He highlighted uncertainty around tariffs, trade policy, immigration policy, federal spending, and possible changes to tax and debt-ceiling policy, all of which could affect Minnesota’s economy and revenues. Minnesota’s labor market remains tight, with low unemployment and rising wages, and the revenue forecast was revised upward overall for FY 2026-27, including higher income and sales tax receipts, though corporate tax revenue was slightly lower than previously projected. Mingi said projected general fund spending is up $79 million in FY 2026-27 and $960 million in FY 2028-29 compared with November. The largest increases are in education and health and human services, especially due to inflation, higher pupil counts, special education costs, long-term care, and higher Medical Assistance spending. She noted that higher utilization of weight-loss drugs also raises Medicaid costs, and that a smaller assumed bonding bill helps offset some debt service costs. The commissioner and staff repeatedly warned that federal policy changes, especially possible Medicaid reductions, pose a major risk; they said Minnesota could face billions in lost federal funding, including a potential $2.4 billion hit if the enhanced Medicaid match for adults without children were eliminated. No votes or legislative actions were taken in the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><02:14:11.199><c> how</c> session on it and to help calculate how session on it and to help calculate
• </c> redistribution of property tax revenue redistribution of property tax revenue this<04:21:49.960>
• </c> property tax with a local Revenue property tax with a local Revenue contribution<04:33:40.879><c
• Also attached to my testimony that I gave out to all of you is the... revenue raised from property revenue
• </c><05:23:38.160><c> from</c> route in fact none of the revenue from route in fact none of the revenue

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and in your packets, I direct you to the revenue note that shows increasing the household income
• The revenue note also tells us this is probably not a bill we can pay for in the current year.
• And secondly, the definition of a household's income for qualifying for and calculating the credit has
• Secondly, the definition of a household's income for qualifying for and calculating the credit has been
• </c><00:26:02.720><c> that</c> and that that is a calculation that and that that is a calculation that

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 2499, authored by Representative Lee, which would expand Minnesota’s renters’ credit to more closely match the homestead credit for homeowners. Lee explained that the bill would raise the income cutoff from about $75,389 to $143,140 and increase the maximum credit to $3,500, with the goal of addressing what she described as an inequity between renters and homeowners who both pay property taxes. She cited revenue estimates showing the change could make about 80,000 additional renters eligible, while acknowledging the bill would be costly to enact this year. Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project testified in support, describing how the renters’ credit works, including the assumption that 17% of rent goes toward property taxes. She highlighted 2022 data showing most recipients had low incomes, many were seniors or people with disabilities, and participation was higher in greater Minnesota in some respects. Michael Dah of Homeline also supported the bill, saying renters face rising housing costs and use the credit for basic needs such as groceries, school supplies, medical care, and car repairs. Members discussed whether expanding the credit would simply benefit landlords or encourage rent increases. Representative Anderson opposed the bill on the grounds that policy should incentivize homeownership, while Representative Huitt argued the credit could help renters build savings and move toward homeownership if they choose. Representative Lee responded that the housing market is broken and that the credit is one tool to help renters in a broader housing continuum. The discussion also covered outreach and administration of the credit, including the recent move to file it with income taxes, electronic certificates of rent paid, and funding for tax-preparation assistance and outreach through VITA sites and community organizations. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion in the omnibus tax bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Also then, since we're talking about revenues, I want to compare the executive revenue estimates and
• Henderson described how close the OSPB revenues were, the executive revenues were, with the JLBC revenues
• The JLBC underestimated the revenues by 10.6%.
• It is imposed by the Department of Revenue.
• This error rate is calculated on a monthly basis.

Committee: House House Appropriations Committee of Reference

Summary: The Committee of Appropriations met on January 21, 2026, and first considered House Bill 2116, which would appropriate $1 million in fiscal year 2027 to the Colorado River Litigation Fund. The sponsor and Arizona Department of Water Resources both supported the bill, describing it as a backup measure to protect Arizona’s Colorado River entitlements if post-2026 negotiations among the basin states fail. Members discussed how the bill relates to the governor’s separate Colorado River Protection Fund proposal, and staff clarified the two funds serve different purposes. The committee approved HB 2116 on a 17-1 roll call vote. The committee then took up House Bill 2053, which would provide $100,000 for updated stormwater recharge mapping and expand the work beyond state trust lands to private lands. An amendment in the chair’s name was adopted to extend the coordination timeline, broaden the agencies involved, and revise language about mapped sites and appropriable surface water. The sponsor said the bill is intended to identify more places to capture stormwater for recharge rather than letting most rainfall evaporate. ADWR testified neutrally, supporting the mapping effort but raising a concern about language that could be read as requiring the department to determine whether water is appropriable, which it said is a legal question for the courts. The amended bill passed 11-7. House Bill 2148, as amended, was then heard and approved 11-7. The bill would give the legislature authority to appropriate non-custodial federal monies and set requirements for those appropriations. The chair’s amendment excluded federal research grants to universities, university employees, and the Arizona Board of Regents. The sponsor framed the bill as a transparency measure, saying the legislature should know how federal funds are being spent. No outside testimony was offered, and the committee approved the measure after debate about legislative oversight of federal funds. After the bills, the committee received a lengthy JLBC presentation comparing the executive budget with the JLBC baseline. Discussion focused on revenue forecasts, tax conformity, sports betting, lottery and tourism revenue assumptions, SNAP administrative costs and error-rate penalties, developmental disability and Access caseload growth, and K-12 enrollment and ESA spending. Members repeatedly questioned the executive budget’s use of one-time funding for ongoing costs, especially for SNAP administration and DES staffing, and expressed concern about rising supplemental needs and the lack of long-term budget capacity. No votes were taken on the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• How revenues would be spread across local governments in California?
• Yeah, I think I... ...get the local revenue stream from Bradley-Burns that way.
• We need to get their revenue first.
• So the immediacy of this proposal in terms of revenue gains is appealing.
• So there's a whole list of things that go into calculating a corporation's tax.

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision proposals from the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Government Operations Agency, the Department of Technology, and the Franchise Tax Board, with public comment to come later and all items held open. CDFA presented funding for the animal care program implementing Proposition 12, including a one-time $5.2 million General Fund transfer to the Ag Fund and $2.8 million ongoing, and the LAO recommended approval while noting the Legislature should revisit the funding once litigation and federal preemption questions are resolved. CDFA also proposed ending state oversight of industrial hemp and moving to the federal USDA program by January 1, 2028, with an $8.3 million General Fund transfer to cover startup and transition costs; the LAO supported the transition. Additional CDFA items included $204,000 ongoing and one position to preserve agricultural statistics reporting after USDA reorganization, and trailer bill changes to clarify the department’s 5% indirect cost cap; both drew no objections from Finance or LAO. The Government Operations Agency and Cradle to Career items focused on implementing the new federal Workforce Pell program. Finance described trailer bill language establishing state eligibility processes, with the California Student Aid Commission as the authorizing entity in consultation with the Workforce Development Board, and proposed $1.3 million one-time General Fund for Cradle to Career to build data linkages. The LAO urged caution because federal rules were just finalized and said more information was needed on workload, costs, and whether existing data systems could support the work. Senators raised policy concerns about limiting the program to public institutions and about aligning the proposal with broader workforce and labor goals. The committee also briefly discussed SB 53/Cal Compute, with GovOps saying no appropriation had been provided for its consortium work, and Finance saying the administration was not proposing funding at this time. The Department of Technology presented a $30 million operational backstop for the Middle Mile Broadband Initiative, intended to cover any shortfall if expected revenues from the Golden State Net third-party administrator do not materialize in time. The LAO initially recommended rejection over broad spending authority, then suggested amendments with stronger reporting and legislative review; committee members questioned the revenue assumptions, oversight, and whether the request could recur. CDT also sought $1 million for Poppy, the state’s GenAI digital assistant, to expand secure statewide use; the LAO had no concerns, and members asked about data security, model bias, training restrictions, and possible local-government use. Finally, FTB proposed realigning CalFile resources after the federal Direct File program was discontinued, retaining three ongoing positions and returning the rest of the funding and positions to the General Fund; the LAO said the reduced scope was reasonable, and members discussed keeping the free filing system user-friendly and ready for future federal changes. The committee also heard the administration’s digital pre-written software tax proposal, which would extend sales tax to electronically delivered software and SaaS beginning January 1, 2027, generating an estimated $450 million General Fund in 2026-27 and $900 million ongoing, plus local revenue. The LAO supported modernizing the tax base but recommended broadening the proposal to include more digital products while considering a business-use exemption or reduced rate, and flagged a newly added video game exemption as a revenue downside. Senators generally supported the goal of raising revenue and aligning California with other states, but questioned the local revenue distribution and equity effects, and one senator said they would not support expanding the tax to books, music streaming, and similar consumer products. All items were left open without votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• So could we cover some mobile crisis units with 988 charge revenue?
• And Cal OES uses a statutory calculation to sort of consider the fund balance.
• With the shift of Medi-Cal percentage from 85 to 50, we will lose revenue.
• Options included using historical revenue data and historical expenditure data.
• .. ...be expected fluctuations within revenue, let alone a serious downturn in revenue that could be

Keywords: 987, senate, all