Transcript Highlights:

• and an equivalent amount of federal funds.
• > of<00:43:26.040> granted funds below 90% our program of granted funds below 90% our program
• They're 100% federal funds.
• funds um I they're 100% federal funds um I understood<01:38:39.159> um<01:38:39.520> the
• c> um types of Federal funding to support um types of Federal funding to support um DCF<02:18:24.800

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Division Three work session on February 21, 2025 focused on the Division of Medicaid Services budget. The chair opened with procedural guidance, noting the division’s role is to make recommendations to the full Finance Committee, that the budget must be balanced, and that members should track possible amendments ahead of a March 26 target for House Bills 1 and 2. Members also discussed the importance of using official budget documents and online resources, and the chair said no motions would be taken at this session. A major early topic was concern over a five-point Medicaid policy document and the timing of House Bill 2. Representative Tarki objected that the document appeared to be an unofficial draft and argued that significant Medicaid policy changes should have been transmitted by February 15 under state law. He said the lack of an official, posted document raised transparency concerns because the changes could affect tens of thousands of residents. Committee leadership responded that the five-point document was a working document, that it would be posted online within minutes, and that House Bill 2 is often delayed while the Office of Legislative Services finalizes and formats the governor’s proposed trailer bill. DHHS Chief Financial Officer Nathan White and Medicaid Director Henry Litman then began the budget presentation. White said the committee would use the PowerPoint as the document of record, starting with the governor’s operating budget pages 885-893, and noted that Medicaid is the largest accounting area in the state budget. He said the governor’s budget reflects about $60 million in reductions within the Medicaid area, with Granite Advantage handled off-budget and another $10 million in reductions there, for roughly a $70 million difference overall. Members asked whether the comparison was being made against an efficiency budget or a prioritized-needs budget, and White said the department could look at it different ways. The presentation then outlined Medicaid’s role in New Hampshire: it provides health coverage, serves as the state’s direct interface with the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and helps finance related services such as long-term supports, school-based services, adult dental coverage, and re-entry programs for people leaving correctional settings. White also reviewed enrollment and program context, saying New Hampshire has about one in seven residents enrolled in Medicaid, making it the fourth smallest Medicaid program in the country by enrollment, and described recent efforts such as youth re-entry and the Medicaid unwind after the end of the federal continuous coverage period. He said the state had to process more than 238,000 redeterminations after the public health emergency and that the department tried to avoid unnecessary coverage loss during that transition.

Transcript Highlights:

• So are these programs strictly federal funds, these ones you have here?
• So are these programs strictly federal funds, these ones you have here?
• So are these programs strictly federal funds, these ones you have here?
• So are these programs strictly federal funds, these ones you have here?
• So are these programs strictly federal funds, these ones you have here?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee Division II met with the New Hampshire Department of Education to review school nutrition programs and related funding. Department staff Melissa White and Kelly Rambo walked through a packet covering the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program, explaining that these are federally funded USDA programs, with some state supplemental funding in certain areas. They also reviewed reimbursement rates for lunch, breakfast, child/adult care, and summer meals, noting that summer rates follow calendar-year timing while most others follow the state fiscal year. Members asked several questions about how the funding works, especially the difference between federal reimbursements and the state match. Staff explained that the state lunch line in the budget is a fixed match amount tied to federal participation, while breakfast funding is broken out by meal type and reimbursement category. They also discussed why FY 2022 federal spending was much higher during COVID, when USDA covered meals at the free rate for all students, and why FY 2023 and FY 2024 dropped as normal income-eligibility rules returned. A committee member also asked about the “severe need lunch” two-cent rate, and staff said they did not know USDA’s formula. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on summer meals and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved sites, which can be open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-operated benefit program that provides funds to families. They said some schools or sites may not qualify under USDA rules, but eligible children can often use another nearby open site, and the department posts an interactive map and phone line to help families find locations. The committee also discussed the Community Eligibility Provision. Staff said New Hampshire currently has three CEP schools, that the eligibility threshold had recently been lowered from 40% to 25% identified students, and that the program allows participating schools to offer free meals to all students while the local district covers the non-federal share. Members asked whether any districts in the 25% to 40% range had joined; staff said no. The department offered to provide the eligibility report in Excel and noted that the CEP intent is to reduce application burden, though the lower threshold can make the local cost share harder for some districts to absorb.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've had some reductions in this funding. We had a federal reduction to these funds.
• I think when Federal reduction to these funds.
• So we had a small reduction in our federal funding.
• We've also had a trend in federal funding where the federal fiscal year tends to be, not tends to, it
• The next bucket of funding is rural workforce program funding.

Bills: S0048

Keywords: housing, accessory dwelling units, affordable housing, local government, zoning regulations, military families, density bonus, homeownership, property taxes

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development heard presentations on the Governor’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2026-27 and then considered one bill, CS/SB 48 on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The Governor’s office outlined a $117.4 billion overall budget, with transportation and economic development receiving about $18 billion statewide and $601 million in general revenue. Agency heads then presented priorities for Commerce, Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Military Affairs, State, Transportation, Emergency Management, and the Florida State Guard, emphasizing workforce development, housing, tourism marketing, aviation and space infrastructure, law enforcement recruitment, emergency preparedness, and military readiness. In the Commerce presentation, Secretary Kelly highlighted funding for housing programs, the Hometown Heroes program, the Florida Job Growth Grant Fund, rural infrastructure and workforce grants, Reconnect and Florida WINS systems, law enforcement and firefighter recruitment bonuses, defense support, Visit Florida, Space Florida, and SelectFlorida. Senators asked about Visit Florida’s private match requirements and whether the agency fully leveraged prior appropriations; Visit Florida’s CEO said the match was met and exceeded, though it is difficult but important. The Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles presentation focused on trooper pay, pursuit vehicles, aviation assets, and enterprise data systems, with questions about immigration enforcement and body cameras. Military Affairs requested funding for readiness centers, training facilities, education and health benefits for Guardsmen, and maintenance of existing armories; members discussed Guard deployments, staffing levels, and a proposed firing range project. The Department of State requested funds for automated election audits, a conservation lab, and historic preservation, and defended its arts grant process and rule changes. Transportation’s budget emphasized a $14.3 billion work program, road and bridge maintenance, aviation and aerospace, safety initiatives, and seaport investments, while Emergency Management requested funding for preparedness, flood mitigation, WebEOC, grants management, and alert systems; senators also asked about the Alligator Alcatraz detention facility. For CS/SB 48, Senator Gates explained that the bill would require local governments to allow property owners to voluntarily create ADUs, while preserving local authority over setbacks, construction, and permitting. An amendment removed reusable tenant screening reports and clarified that conforming ADUs would be allowed by right without a separate hearing. The Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association supported the bill, saying ADUs could help provide long-term housing for service workers. After questions about local government and HOA authority, the committee adopted the amendment and then reported CS/SB 48 favorably by roll call vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• The framework for public education initiatives is used as a three-year pilot program to fund programs
• required state match maintenance efforts for federally eligible programs, prior to expanding state funds
• There are 13 different federal programs that are available right now.
• That's a federal nutrition program that helps support nutritious food in child care programs. Mr.
• Federal programs are usually gone through because they're usually competitive programs.

Bills: SB204, SB241, HB34

Keywords: higher education, research funding, federal funding, New Mexico, appropriation, University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, child care, child care assistance, child care subsidy, early childhood education, early childhood care, daycare, preschool, pre-K, Head Start, Early Head Start, Children's Code, early childhood education and care department

Transcript Highlights:

• to then create a program to match federal grants.
• We understand that a lot of programs are changing across the federal government, but for us, our funding
• longer fully rely on federal funding.
• plan without relying on federal funds.
• While we support the shoring up of funds for... ...on federal funds.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 55, the governor’s FY25 supplemental budget proposal to spend about $1.3 billion in surplus Fair Share revenue. House and Senate chairs framed the bill as a one-time opportunity to invest fairly in education and transportation, while also noting the need to protect the state’s long-term fiscal balance. Administration officials said the proposal should be considered alongside the FY26 budget and related bills, since the governor’s broader Fair Share plan aims for roughly an even split between education and transportation over time. Secretary of Administration and Finance Matthew Gorzkowicz, Transportation Secretary Monica Tibbits-Nutt, and Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler outlined the administration’s priorities. Transportation funding would go mainly to the MBTA and related reserves, including money for the Federal Transit Administration reserve, MBTA stabilization reserve, low-income fares, winter resilience, RTA workforce support, MassDOT workforce and project delivery, and micro-transit grants. Education funding would support universal preschool expansion, early education and care capacity, early literacy tutoring, adult basic education and ESOL, early college and career technical education, MyCAP expansion, and special education circuit breaker funding. The administration emphasized that many of these investments are one-time or multi-year measures designed to address current needs without creating unsustainable recurring costs. Committee members raised concerns about regional equity, especially the large share of transportation money going to the MBTA versus regional transit authorities and rural areas. Several members asked for more detail on how the proposal would benefit Western Massachusetts and other non-MBTA regions, and whether micro-transit and Chapter 90-related investments would be sufficient. Education questions focused on special education reimbursement shortfalls, federal funding cuts to school districts, and how CTE and vocational investments would align students with workforce needs. The administration said it would provide additional data on MBTA versus RTA investment and explained that the special education circuit breaker and transportation reimbursement changes were intended to improve predictability and relief for districts. After the administration panel, Jessica Tang of AFT Massachusetts testified in support of using Fair Share funds to protect public education amid federal uncertainty and cuts. She argued that schools are facing a fiscal cliff, that vulnerable students would be hit hardest by funding losses, and that the Fair Share revenue should be used to preserve services and support students’ needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Without the anticipated federal funding, the state would have run through all of its cash reserves by
• Finally, one of the last programs at issue was the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act funds.
• Green New Deal, in June, the federal court enjoined this funding freeze against states.
• We obtained a court order directing the federal government to resume provision of funding. of funding
• Is this part of a bigger effort at cutting funds or programs?

Transcript Highlights:

• It's about federal leadership funding.
• the federal funding has on the impacts the federal funding has on those.<00:58:39.680> I<00:58
• We receive no federal funds for that program, and so that program is unaffected right now. continuing
• reliant on state funding as opposed to federal funding.
• I million of of funding for the program.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• federal funding at this point?
• That's with federal funding.
• federal fund authority.
• And that's part of why you're seeing that program focused on federal funding, focused on funding to actually
• If we were to implement an all-offender program, the funding that we would receive from the federal government

Summary: The hearing opened with budget framing from the chair and the LAO, who said the May Revision addresses roughly a $14 billion budget problem and that the environment and transportation subcommittee’s proposals account for about $1.9 billion of the solution. The LAO urged members to focus on solutions that do not worsen out-year deficits, to preserve reserves, and to defer major policy changes that are not necessary to pass the budget, including the newly introduced water-related trailer bills. Members also raised concern about a late-dropped Olympic-related trailer bill, which the LAO likewise suggested should be deferred for fuller review. The first major item was the Delta Conveyance Project and related water quality control plan trailer bills. The administration argued the proposals would streamline permitting, water rights proceedings, judicial review, and land acquisition, and would clarify DWR’s bond authority for the project. DWR said the project is needed to protect water supply reliability against drought, earthquakes, sea level rise, and other climate-related disruptions, and that the tunnel would help move water when conditions are wet and safer for the environment. Committee members from both parties questioned the timing, the use of budget trailer bills for major policy changes, the scope of the CEQA and water-rights changes, the lack of a bond cap, cost growth, and eminent domain protections. The LAO recommended deferring both water trailer bills without prejudice. Public comment was sharply divided, with labor, water agencies, and some business groups supporting the project as climate adaptation and reliability infrastructure, while environmental, tribal, fishing, county, and community groups opposed it as an attempt to bypass public process and weaken protections. The committee then briefly heard the DMV’s Digital Experience Platform fee trailer bill, which would reinstate a $1 system improvement fee to help fund the vehicle-registration phase of the project. DMV said the fee would raise about $7 million annually and offset roughly $59 million to $60 million of project costs, while the LAO noted it would help but would not solve the Motor Vehicle Account’s broader structural gap. The hearing then moved to California High-Speed Rail, where the new CEO presented an updated plan and said the project remains a major climate and infrastructure investment. He reported a revised Merced-to-Bakersfield cost range of $34.9 billion to $38.5 billion, said the agency is trying to reduce risk through direct procurement of materials, and argued that stable annual funding is needed to avoid higher costs from delays.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a fairly new program for us that is funded with the Housing Trust Fund.
• rate increases and fund expansion within the workforce technology program.
• , federal funding for grants to local entities.
• But we take a share of all those other federal program funds to fund workforce technology instead of
• On this marvelous DFA chart, will it have federal funding as well?

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So this proposes the creation of a transportation trust fund and a transportation program fund.
• So this proposes the creation of a transportation trust fund and a transportation program fund.
• We haven't approved a program. TTCP are highly trained. It is a federal FHWA-recognized program.
• We haven't approved a program. TTCP are highly trained. It is a federal FHWA-recognized program.
• We get into the TPF funding, transportation program, a project funding for fiscal year 25.

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The committee first took up HB 322, which would create a transportation trust fund and transportation program fund. The sponsor offered and the committee adopted an amendment striking the section that would have imposed a 1% gross receipts tax on electricity sales. After a recap of the bill’s remaining provisions, including a $400 million seed amount and future transfers from motor vehicle excise tax revenue, the committee heard brief support from Associated Contractors of New Mexico and the Asphalt Pavement Association and no opposition. The amended bill then passed on a roll-call vote. The committee then heard HB 270, a public works/apprenticeship bill that would require contributions to approved apprenticeship and training programs or to the Public Works Apprentice and Training Fund for public works construction projects, while eliminating an exemption for certain road, highway, utility, and maintenance work. Supporters, including union carpenters, electrical workers, the building trades council, and apprenticeship advocates, argued the bill would expand training, help address labor shortages, and provide a return on public investment. Opponents from utility contractors, highway contractors, and Associated Contractors of New Mexico said they already operate federally approved in-house training programs, warned the bill would raise project costs, and argued some trades have no accessible approved programs. Members questioned how the bill would interact with existing in-house programs, whether rural contractors and nonunion firms would be affected, and whether the state-approved fund and federal highway training requirements could conflict. A proposed amendment to exempt projects of $50 million or less was introduced but tabled. After extensive debate, the committee voted 6-5 to pass HB 270. The meeting also included discussion of a prior procedural error in which HB 270 had been heard before being properly assigned, which the chair said rendered that earlier action void. At the end of the meeting, the committee received a brief New Mexico Department of Transportation District 3 presentation on district projects, budget, and construction status.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are your Rebuild Florida program funds.
• These are your Rebuild Florida program funds.
• So we had a small reduction in our federal funding.
• The next bucket of funding is rural workforce program funding.
• The next bucket of funding is rural workforce program funding.

Summary: The committee met to hear the Governor’s proposed budget for the Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development silo and to consider one bill. The Governor’s Office outlined a $117.4 billion state budget, including $18.3 billion for the TED area, with major allocations for the Department of Transportation, Commerce, Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, State, Military Affairs, Emergency Management, and the Florida State Guard. Agency heads then presented their priorities, including housing and disaster recovery funds at Commerce; pay, vehicles, aviation, and data systems at Highway Safety; facility modernization, recruitment, retention, and maintenance at Military Affairs; election audit, conservation lab, and historic preservation funding at State; transportation, aviation, seaport, and safety investments at DOT; and emergency response, flood mitigation, grant systems, and alerting at Emergency Management. Members asked questions about Visit Florida’s private match, FHP’s role in immigration enforcement and body cameras, National Guard deployment tempo and staffing, State Guard staffing and facilities, arts grant rules, rail funding, and the number of detainees at the Everglades detention site. Several notable positions were expressed during questioning. Visit Florida said it met and exceeded its private match requirement and described the match as important to ensuring value from public dollars. The Highway Patrol said its aviation assets have been used more heavily in immigration enforcement and that in-vehicle camera systems were a higher priority than body cameras at present. The National Guard and State Guard both emphasized heavy operational demands, readiness needs, and the importance of additional funding for facilities, personnel, and equipment. The Department of State said its audit funding would help counties move to automated post-election audits and that its arts grant rule changes were intended to create more consistent scoring rather than reduce access. The committee then took up CS/SB 48 on accessory dwelling units. The bill requires local governments to allow property owners to voluntarily create ADUs, preserves homestead treatment for the primary residence portion, limits parking restrictions, and extends density bonus incentives to housing for military families receiving basic housing allowance. An amendment was adopted removing reusable tenant screening reports and clarifying that compliant ADUs are allowed by right without a separate hearing or permit. Testimony from the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association supported the bill, especially the long-term rental requirement, as a tool to help workforce housing. The committee reported the bill favorably by a roll call vote, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• net programs, and now a direct federal assault on our state.
• But it's also necessary because as we look at the General Fund, these programs, core safety net programs
• federal HIV funding.
• federal HIV funding.
• On the EPIC extension as a ratepayer-funded public-purpose program, we believe EPIC and similar programs

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee heard opening remarks on the 2025 Budget Act, which will be amended into AB 101 and SB 101 for floor consideration. Committee leaders described the budget as a difficult compromise shaped by a $12 billion deficit, federal funding uncertainty, wildfire impacts, and rising out-year costs, while emphasizing a balance between compassion and fiscal responsibility. Each budget subcommittee chair then summarized major actions in their areas, including health care, human services, education, climate and transportation, housing and state administration, public safety, and oversight/transparency. Key policy items included delaying or narrowing some of the Governor’s proposed cuts, especially in Medi-Cal and other safety-net programs; preserving funding for dental care, women’s health, family planning, hospice, long-term care, IHSS, and services for undocumented Californians; and maintaining or expanding child care, foster care, food banks, and CalWORKs-related supports. Education actions included additional Proposition 98 settle-up, reduced deferrals, support for TK-12, teacher recruitment, literacy, mental health, preschool slots, and restored funding for UC and CSU. Other major items included housing and homelessness investments, wildfire and disaster response funding, transit loans and greenhouse gas reduction fund support, Proposition 36 and VOCA-related public safety funding, and oversight measures on federal impacts and state efficiency. Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst staff said the package makes some of the same savings moves as the May Revision but relies more on internal borrowing and fewer reductions, leaving a smaller reserve than the administration’s plan but still maintaining roughly $11 billion in the rainy day fund. Members from both parties largely supported the package while raising concerns about long-term sustainability, Medi-Cal costs, reserve use, and the need for future revenue and program review. The committee adopted the subcommittee actions by roll call, 18-6, with the roll held open for absent members and additional comments continuing after the vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• , perhaps get full federal funding to complete that H Line.
• , perhaps get full federal funding to complete that H Line.
• Funding comes from federal sources.
• c><00:27:34.039> capital Federal funds, not just the capital programs, uh, like the potential
• > to allocate federal funds on on a to allocate federal funds on on a solicitation<00:36:24.760> basis

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Transportation Committee met on January 29, 2025, to hear the Metropolitan Council’s presentation on the Governor’s proposed agency budget requests. The Council outlined three main budget items: authorization to advance funds to MnDOT to help coordinate a highway project with arterial bus rapid transit construction; a proposal to make free regular-route transit rides permanent for eligible Metro Mobility riders, after a successful pilot that produced nearly 75,000 rides; and a reduction in general fund support for rail operations, which the Council said it could absorb in the near term. The Council also noted it was seeking $15 million in the bonding bill for bus rapid transit, including support for the H Line, and described other capital requests for an infill/infiltration program and regional parks. Council leadership said the advance-funds proposal would let two projects move together more efficiently, reduce disruption, and potentially lower costs by avoiding repeated reconstruction and maintenance. On the Metro Mobility fare pilot, they said the lower fare increased rider freedom and spontaneity while saving state money because fixed-route service is cheaper than individual Metro Mobility trips. On the general fund reduction, they said the agency is expanding service, opening the Gold Line, B Line, and E Line, and can manage the cut because of its diversified revenue sources, though it could affect future expansion. Senator Nelson raised concerns about the proposal to expand the Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund to include regional parks and trails, warning that the legislation should clearly avoid creating condemnation authority for park or trail projects, especially where they are adjacent to MnDOT projects. Council staff responded that the program would finance local acquisitions rather than give the Met Council condemnation power, and said they would take the concern under advisement and ensure the legislation is carefully drafted. Members also discussed federal funding uncertainty; Council officials said federal transit operating support is about $30 million and that a pause or cut could affect future capital projects and some existing awards, while the region’s diversified funding base would help cushion operations. No votes or formal actions were taken at the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bulk of our funding is federally funded in our construction programs and things like that, and that
• The bulk of our funding is federally funded in our construction programs and things like that, and that
• <01:23:07.880> to funding of the training program to funding of the training program to Federal
• fund billing for the work that they do on the federal program or federal indirect funds, as well as
• federal program or federal indirect federal program or federal indirect funds<02:01:29.480> um

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met with New Hampshire DOT Commissioner Bill Cass and Finance Director Danielle Shandra to review the agency’s FY 2026 budget. Cass gave a high-level overview of DOT’s mission, organization, funding structure, and staffing trends, noting the agency has about 650 employees across five divisions. He said the Governor’s recommended FY 2026 budget totals $95.99 million, essentially flat from FY 2025, with funding primarily from Turnpike funds, Highway funds, federal sources, and a small General Fund share for non-highway units. Members asked about how Turnpike and Highway funds are treated in state accounting, and DOT explained that while they are enterprise funds restricted to their purposes, they are considered unrestricted from the statewide perspective and are appropriated through the budget process. A major topic was staffing and budget targets. DOT said its full-time staffing level has remained relatively flat since 2014 even as vehicle miles traveled increased and vacancies rose. To meet budget targets, the department unfunded seven permanent positions and nine temporary full-time positions, and later noted additional reductions in Finance, including the elimination of two full-time positions, reduced print shop equipment purchases, and deeper cuts to overtime, temporary help, equipment, and supplies in FY 2027. DOT also explained that it shifted funding for one unmanned aerial system position from General Funds to Highway Funds, saying the change was workable because the position supports highway-related work and federal-aid-eligible activities. Members asked for clarification on the state transit operating match, and DOT explained that the Legislature had previously provided about $1.8 million annually in General Funds to help local transit agencies meet federal match requirements, but that funding was not included in this budget. DOT said that could reduce the ability to draw down some federal transit funds, though the impact may not be immediate because those funds can be used over several years. The department also described its unmanned aerial system program, saying it has been used for about five years for mapping, survey work, construction oversight, and storm damage assessment, and that it now has about five drones and two full-time positions supporting the program. DOT said it is expanding cross-training so more employees can operate drones without adding positions. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• , HAP, as well as funding for homelessness programs in the Department of Social Services.
• I would like to thank the Legislature also for funding the Wright grant program, the Jails to Job program
• I would like to thank the legislature also for funding the Wright grant program, the Jails to Job program
• The loss of this program comes at a time when food prices remain high and federal food assistance programs
• food assistance programs federally are facing increased scrutiny.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the 2026 Budget Act, which leaders described as the compromise budget expected to move to the floor later that evening. Opening remarks emphasized that the plan balances the budget over two years, reduces the structural deficit, and builds reserves, while also protecting core programs from federal cuts. Jason Sisney outlined the legislative budget plan, saying it uses higher-than-expected revenues and reserve balances to reject some proposed reductions and fund temporary restorations and new spending in areas such as education, child care, health care, housing, homelessness, and public safety. Department of Finance representatives said the administration appreciated the two-year balanced framework and the effort to address out-year deficits, while noting the plan includes additional spending and revenue changes. Sisney also previewed floor bills including AB 109, SB 110, SB 122, and SB 125, with SB 122 described as a modification to the tax credit proposal and SB 125 as the managed care organization tax proposal. Subcommittee chairs then described the major policy choices in their areas. Health chair Addis said the budget responds to federal health care rollbacks by protecting Medi-Cal, clinics, hospitals, dental care, and other safety-net services, while also supporting reproductive care, gender-affirming care, and county health systems. Education chair Alvarez highlighted increased school funding, expanded learning, special education, teacher support, community colleges, and a change to Cal Grant eligibility for older community college students. Other chairs emphasized child care expansions, homelessness and housing funding, prison closure and criminal justice savings, wildfire mitigation, county support for Medi-Cal and CalFresh administration, and accountability measures tied to homelessness and corrections spending. Several members also raised concerns or priorities, including the impact of the MCO tax on providers, the need for more support for local journalism, transit and climate funding, biotech and R&D incentives, and continued work on Prop 98 and long-term revenue solutions. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided, but members broadly expressed support for the budget framework and the need to continue negotiations with the administration before final passage. The committee discussion repeatedly framed the budget as a response to federal policy changes and a choice to protect vulnerable Californians while maintaining fiscal responsibility. The vice chair, citing LAO warnings about future volatility and limited reserves, pressed Finance on whether the budget represented a record-sized state budget and whether revenues were also at record levels, underscoring concerns about the state’s preparedness for a downturn.

Transcript Highlights:

• The remaining section are other programs that are funded either primarily through state or federal sources
• The remaining section are other programs that are funded either primarily through state or federal sources
• There's the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is fully federally funded on benefits
• paid out for the federal program.
• And I'm just curious where WIC fits in, especially since it is a federally funded program.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a work session to review how H.R. 1 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) could affect Washington’s Medicaid, long-term care, developmental disabilities, and food assistance programs, with a focus on implementation challenges, fiscal impacts, and likely coverage losses. Staff and agency officials explained Washington’s Medicaid financing structure, eligibility categories, caseload trends, and the role of the Health Care Authority and DSHS in administering Apple Health and related services. They also described how Medicaid expansion increased access to behavioral health services and how H.R. 1’s provisions are expected to affect the expansion population most directly. Health Care Authority and DSHS officials outlined several major H.R. 1 changes: new work and community engagement requirements for the Medicaid expansion population, six-month redeterminations instead of annual renewals, changes to immigrant eligibility, limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments, new cost-sharing requirements, reduced retroactive coverage, and changes affecting long-term care eligibility. They said Washington is still awaiting federal guidance on many details, but estimated that about 620,000 Apple Health expansion enrollees could be subject to work requirements, that roughly 30,000 immigrants could lose Medicaid eligibility under the new definition of qualified alien, and that some long-term care and developmental disability clients could be indirectly affected. Officials also said the state is working with other agencies to build shared verification systems and may seek a delay waiver, though they do not expect broad federal flexibility. The committee also heard that H.R. 1 immediately blocks Medicaid reimbursement for Planned Parenthood services for one year, with the state planning to backfill about $11 million to preserve access. In addition, officials warned that the law could reduce federal Medicaid revenue by billions over time and strain hospitals and emergency rooms as more people become uninsured. They noted that Washington’s rural health transformation grant application is due November 5 and could bring some funding, but not to offset coverage losses. No votes were taken; the session was informational only. The committee then heard a separate presentation on food assistance, where staff and DSHS described H.R. 1’s SNAP changes, including expanded work requirements, immigrant eligibility restrictions, higher state administrative costs, and a possible future state share of benefit costs tied to payment error rates. DSHS estimated a four-year fiscal impact of about $750 million for food assistance changes and said the state is working on system and policy changes across agencies before the new requirements take effect.

Transcript Highlights:

• of this funding away, can you tell me what the status of those programs are?
• So we're going from a program, for example, we'd be funding a program that could certainly benefit low-income
• And you can see all those programs that were slated to receive GGRF funding.
• So under the governor's proposal, none of these programs would receive funding.
• We hope to see additional funding, if at all possible, for that program, which is an equity-focused program

Summary: The meeting began with a budget subcommittee hearing on a proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit trailer bill. Assembly Members Ávila Farías and another member spoke in support, emphasizing union jobs, refinery investments, and the need to decarbonize aviation. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s proposal would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold in California from 2026 to 2036. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing it is a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions, has uncertain environmental benefits, could significantly reduce transportation revenues, and conflicts with the spirit of voter restrictions on transportation taxes. Committee members questioned whether the credit would mainly benefit out-of-state producers, whether firms would have diesel tax liability to use the credit, and whether the proposal would shift production away from renewable diesel and raise fuel prices. Administration and CARB staff said the credit is intended to support aviation decarbonization, preserve jobs, and help keep California on track toward its 2045 climate goals. LAO and UC Berkeley testimony countered that the policy could mostly subsidize existing technologies, that feedstock supply is limited, and that the net emissions benefit may be small relative to the cost. Members also asked about the effect on local streets and roads, SHOP, and trade corridor funding; Finance estimated a $165 million annual revenue impact would reduce those programs, while LAO said the reductions would mean fewer projects over time. No vote was taken, and the chair said the issue would remain open for further discussion. The committee then moved to a zero-emission vehicle incentive trailer bill proposing a one-time $200 million appropriation to CARB for a new point-of-sale incentive program focused on first-time buyers and leases of new and used light-duty ZEVs. Supporters said the program would help offset the loss of the federal EV tax credit, maintain momentum in California’s ZEV transition, and use a one-to-one match with participating automakers to double the state’s investment. LAO recommended rejection, saying the proposal does not meet the high budget bar this year, lacks enough program detail to evaluate, is unlikely to move sales significantly given the size of the appropriation, and could duplicate existing state and utility programs. Members asked about current incentives across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty sectors, the recent decline in ZEV sales, and whether the program would help lower-income buyers rather than subsidize purchases that would have happened anyway. CARB said the proposal is meant to fill a gap in the light-duty market, where sales fell sharply after the federal credit expired, and noted existing programs for other vehicle classes. The Department of Finance also addressed a separate question about the Motor Vehicle Account, saying a previously planned GGRF transfer was no longer needed because updated forecasts showed the fund had sufficient balances, though LAO said the account still has a structural long-term imbalance. The discussion ended before any vote or action on the ZEV proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, Representative, yes, it is the federal match fund.
• With that said, we are dovetailing the program because we're running this concurrent federal program,
• When we're looking at the middle-mile funding, I know this is when we're— Regarding the federal funding
• health care authority and get federal matching funds.
• GROW program fund, and so the money from the big fund spends into the program fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• The main things and I've presented this to RESTEP and as well as the Federal Funding Stabilization Committee
• There's a federal change that is actually impacting the general fund, but at an undetermined time, and
• In fiscal year 2012, funding for early childhood programs was less than $200 million.
• funding to implement evidence-based programs in the federal Title IV-E Clearinghouse.
• We're grateful to the federal funding that has supported this work as well as one-time investments from

Transcript Highlights:

• The agency is the central point for statewide higher education federal funding data.
• Federal funding is fluid and subject to daily changes, as many of you know.
• IAIA relies on $13.5 million. of federal funds.
• I know that they get a lot of funding from, what's their national... it's a federal program, I'm trying
• In the state of New Mexico, we fund tribal colleges because they receive federal funding.