Transcript Highlights:

• We're proposing to not fund the program at this time and achieve that. at savings in the next fiscal
• It is a reduction in in light of the state's fiscal budget solutions sorry in light of the state's fiscal
• The only other thing I would note is actually more of a comment Mr.
• So the funding for this program is set to expire at the end of this fiscal year.
• We'll start with the Department of Justice. of Fiscal Operations with the Department of Justice.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, just for the public's information, we received a fiscal note last year on this bill that was zero
• And at 10:40 last night, we received from the courts a fiscal note for 15 new FTEs, which I find very
• <01:18:53.360> note we received um we had a a a fiscal note we received um we had a a a fiscal
• I'll just note any fiscal considerations would be in that committee's jurisdiction.
• You know, this is a preliminary fiscal note. I'm expecting the cost to go down.

Bills: HF3901, HF962, HF4428, HF4478, HF1775

Keywords: foster care, ombudsperson, investigative powers, children's rights, complaint process, HF4428, Medical Assistance, Medicaid, community engagement, work requirement, work mandate, employment requirement, community service, 80 hours, half-time student, income threshold, federal minimum wage, eligibility verification, benefit suspension, benefit termination

Transcript Highlights:

• And so this is removing the funding for the two positions that were in the fiscal note from two years
• <00:08:47.839> note positions that were in the fiscal note positions that were in the fiscal
• And I know our fiscal note showed a cost to Children, Youth, and Families.
• And I know our fiscal note showed a cost to Children, Youth, and Families.
• Chair Mhler and members, the fiscal notes for both bills, I believe, were the same.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill makes various fiscal year 2027 general fund and other fund appropriations for the operations
• year 2028 and not withstands a 10% cap on the fund for fiscal year 2027.
• year 2029, and perhaps in fiscal year 2028, if we can do it sooner.
• year 2027 to meet any county fiscal obligations.
• year 2028 to fiscal year 2029, and that's due to the...

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > be<02:21:37.280> found prepared a fiscal note that can be found prepared a fiscal note
• The full fiscal note history is available on the fiscal note tab of the bill page on the General Assembly
• in their fiscal note.
• in their fiscal note.
• in their fiscal note.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House returned from recess and took up S. 208, a bill on standards for law enforcement identification. The House Judiciary Committee explained that it had rewritten the bill into a model-policy approach focused on Vermont state and local agencies, rather than imposing direct requirements on all law enforcement, because of constitutional and preemption concerns raised by a recent Ninth Circuit decision. The amended bill would direct the Law Enforcement Advisory Board to develop a statewide policy on officer identification and facial coverings by July 2027, require agencies to adopt a consistent policy by October 1, 2027, and deem agencies to have adopted the model policy if they do not act. The committee reported the bill favorably on a 6-5 vote. Members then debated an amendment offered by Representatives Berbeco and McGill to restore federal officers to the bill. Supporters argued that public authority should not be anonymous, that visible identification is necessary for transparency, accountability, and public trust, and that the bill should apply to federal agents as well as state and local officers. They said the amendment included exemptions for undercover work, tactical teams, protective equipment, and safety concerns, and argued Vermont should not wait for courts to resolve every constitutional question before acting. Opponents on the Judiciary Committee said the language remained likely unconstitutional and could jeopardize the bill’s passage; the committee had found the amendment unfavorable on an 8-1 vote. The floor debate continued with several members speaking in favor of the amendment, including arguments that other states have adopted similar requirements and that Vermont should lead on the issue. One member raised a point of order that was not sustained, and the Speaker ruled federal authority relevant to the question. The transcript ends while debate on the amendment was still underway, after a request for a roll-call vote was granted, with no final floor vote on the amendment shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, the building code bills have no fiscal note. fiscal note it should have one but in fiscal
• the as a fiscal note for example the as a fiscal note for example the building<00:29:57.320>
• why early where the fiscal note is out why early where the fiscal note is and<00:30:24.000> where
• I where's the fiscal note uh because I where's the fiscal note uh because I think<00:54:46.040>
• <03:07:59.239> in I think the fiscal note uh says that in I think the fiscal note uh says

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on House Bill 233, which would impose transparency and reporting requirements on the New Hampshire Vaccine Association. The prime sponsor, Representative Comto, said the bill and a proposed amendment were intended to increase public access by requiring a physical meeting location, making meetings available online, and publishing a complete list of vaccines and pharmaceutical products purchased. She argued the association should be more transparent because it is involved in vaccine purchasing and public trust is important, especially given controversy around vaccines. Committee members questioned the sponsor about the association’s legal status, who sets vaccine requirements, whether other private entities would be covered, and whether the proposal should instead apply more broadly to all meetings or include recordings. The sponsor said the association was created by the legislature, that childhood vaccine requirements come from DHHS and CDC-related processes, and that she would be open to broader recording requirements. Some members raised concerns about misinformation and whether requiring answers to public questions could be problematic in a contentious policy area. Patrick Miller, executive director of the Vaccine Association, and attorney Mark McHugh testified in opposition. They described the association as a not-for-profit voluntary corporation created by statute in 2002 to serve as a funding mechanism for the state’s universal childhood vaccine purchase program, with no policymaking role and no public funding. They said the association already posts notices, agendas, minutes, and allows public webinar access and comments, while also providing annual audits and reports and other statutory reporting. They argued HB 233 would impose unnecessary administrative costs on a private entity, interfere with its limited charitable purpose, and ultimately increase costs borne by insurers, employers, and consumers. No vote or final action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• retaining top talent also want to note retaining top talent also want to note our<01:20:31.400><
• 27, starting in fiscal 27.
• 28 and $2.7 million in fiscal 29.
• fiscal 28 and 2.7 million in fiscal fiscal 28 and 2.7 million in fiscal 29<01:28:58.320> thank
• Minnesota uh Center for fiscal Minnesota uh Center for fiscal Excellence<01:48:08.480> said

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• To address the other areas that we were asked to cover in this process, a fiscal note was not required
• because these rules have no fiscal effect.
• Regulatory analysis and fiscal note were prepared.
• Regulatory analysis and fiscal note were prepared.
• A fiscal note for the proposed rules was prepared.

Summary: The Administrative Rules Committee met on June 11 and first approved the March 12, 2026 minutes by voice vote. It then granted the Board of Medicine an extension of time to implement rules tied to recent legislation, including North Dakota’s participation in the physician assistant licensure compact and a new physician nutrition continuing education requirement. The Board said it was waiting on compact rules and fee information before finalizing its own changes. The committee heard a lengthy presentation from the Office of Management and Budget on broad personnel rule revisions, including salary administration, recruitment, leave, sick leave, funeral leave, service awards, appeals, and shared leave. OMB said the changes modernize HR language and implement recent legislation such as enhanced annual leave for hard-to-fill positions and new hire leave. Members questioned the hard-to-fill leave provisions, but OMB and counsel said those standards come from statute, not the rules. The committee also heard and accepted rule packages from the Lottery, the Board of Examiners for Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, the State Electrical Board, the Industrial Commission, PERS, and Health and Human Services, with each agency describing mostly technical, clarifying, or statutory-conforming changes and noting the public notice and comment process. The most significant action came during the Gaming Commission rules presentation. After questioning whether the commission had authority to raise the poker tournament buy-in limit from $300 to $1,500, members moved to void Section 99-01.3-09-01 on the ground that the agency lacked statutory authority for that change. The motion passed on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed several gaming-related issues, including online raffles, kiosk use, advertising restrictions, and the broader policy question of whether charities should be allowed to own bars, but took no further formal action on those topics.

Transcript Highlights:

• Mike Lynn, did we get a fiscal note on this?
• Madam Chair, Representative Stahl Hamilton, a fiscal note has been requested.
• Holly, I think there was maybe not a fiscal note, but the governor estimated a cost to this.
• Madam Chair, we did receive the fiscal note back.
• Note the vote. Okay. HB 2784, Nicole.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The caucus reviewed a long list of bills and resolutions, with staff giving brief descriptions and members flagging which items were on consent, had unanimous committee votes, or should be pulled for further discussion. Topics included education, health care, public safety, labor, water, taxation, housing, and elections. Several measures were noted as party-line or mixed votes, while many others were reported as unanimous and placed on third-read or consent calendars. Among the more discussed items were bills on school and labor policy, including a proposal to prohibit teacher strikes, a measure restricting school district bond actions, a bill requiring school safety protocols and assigning felony penalties for noncompliance, and a resolution limiting public money for labor organization activities. Members also raised concerns or requested further review on bills involving pharmacist testing authority, expired opioid antagonists, a county sheriff-related measure, a housing affordability district proposal, and a tobacco/vape regulation bill. Some measures were explicitly pulled from consent, including a Medicaid audit resolution, a budget-related pay-withholding resolution, and several education and public safety bills. The caucus also heard multiple health and human services measures, such as genetic counselor licensing, nursing board and pharmacy board continuations, foster care rights, psychiatry access funding, and free school meals. In addition, there were water and energy bills on Colorado River management, groundwater, transmission-line review, and renewable energy valuation, plus election and campaign-related proposals. The meeting ended with announcements, including an upcoming Colorado River breakfast briefing and an internal award recognizing Representative Brian Garcia, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, it doesn't change the fiscal note." "All right.
• That's why I asked about the fiscal note."
• the fiscal note is on >> Do we know what the fiscal note is on it?
• doesn't change the fiscal note. doesn't change the fiscal note.
• Well, it'll be up about the fiscal note.

Bills: HB178, HB124, HB96, HB250, SB289, SB317, HB359, HB178, HB124, HB96, HB250, SB289, SB317, HB359

Keywords: HB178, Ten Commandments, public schools, K-12 education, Alabama, school display, religious display, Bible, Judeo-Christian, Establishment Clause, church-state separation, religion in schools, founding documents, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Northwest Ordinance, social studies, civics, history curriculum

Transcript Highlights:

• But members, the fiscal note, where is it? Here. The fiscal note is zero.
• The the fiscal note, where is it? Here.
• So, we bring something that has zero fiscal note, but they want to hold a zero fiscal note to the end
• So, we bring something that has zero fiscal note, but they want to hold a zero fiscal note to the end
• This is very simple, a simple zero fiscal note. ...simple. A simple zero fiscal note.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, you know, there's a funny little note that's actually in the fiscal note of this bill, and um, this
• places where we should get a new fiscal places where we should get a new fiscal note because<01:
• <02:58:24.640> the the fiscal note it's very clear the the fiscal note it's very clear the
• note dollar fiscal notes that we’ll continue to see as we go forward.
• <04:44:40.080> note And since the initial fis fiscal note And since the initial fis fiscal

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The House convened, established a quorum, and approved the journal from April 10, 2026. After a brief opening that included the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call, the chamber moved into third reading. The first item was House Bill 1348, concerning use of money from the broadband infrastructure cash fund, which passed on final passage. The House then took up a series of bills dealing largely with education funding and program changes, including House Bills 1349 through 1358, covering prevention services in early childhood, school food programs, Healthy School Meals for All funding, Colorado reading and social studies assessment changes, repeal or phase-out of several teacher and school-related programs, and the Colorado Academic Accelerator Grant Program. Most of these measures were adopted, with some receiving notable no votes but still passing. The chamber also considered House Bill 1359, which would credit money from removal of natural resources on public school lands to the state public school fund, and House Bill 1360, concerning the affordable housing financing fund. HB 1360 drew extended debate. Supporters argued it was consistent with Prop. 123 and TABOR-related funding rules, while opponents said it would divert money from the general fund, exceed what voters authorized, and create a precedent for using reserve-like funds to cover budget shortfalls. Despite the opposition, HB 1360 passed after a member changed a vote from yes to no. The House then adopted House Bills 1361 and 1362, repealing the pay for success contracts program and the Decarbonization Tax Credits Administration Cash Fund, respectively. The final major item was House Bill 1363, which temporarily reduces the general fund reserve. This bill prompted the strongest opposition, with members arguing that the state was using a rainy day fund to cover self-inflicted budget problems, relying on future money, and failing to address underlying spending growth. Supporters of the bill said the reserve reduction was necessary to balance the budget and reflected difficult choices by the Joint Budget Committee. The bill nonetheless passed, and the House completed action on the listed third-reading calendar items.

Transcript Highlights:

• "I have my notes. I'm sorry.
• of 197.3 in 28 and 203.1 million in fiscal 29.
• <00:20:50.480> 27 reduction of 365.9 million in fiscal 27 reduction of 365.9 million in fiscal
• And the impact million in fiscal 29.
• <00:21:32.720> Um, fiscal years. Um, fiscal years.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3524 and House File 3525 and laid both over for possible inclusion in the omnibus tax bill, with no amendments adopted and no vote taken at this stage. HF 3524 would conform Minnesota law to the federal overtime tax deduction, and HF 3525 would conform to the federal tip-income deduction. The author argued both bills would help workers keep more of their earnings, simplify tax filing, support labor-force participation, and provide relief to workers in hospitality, trades, health care, and other industries. The committee heard testimony in support from a restaurant owner, Sandra Weiss of the Finnish Beastro in St. Paul, who said the bills would help tipped workers keep more of their income and would support hospitality businesses. She described her staff as roughly half men and half women, including students and long-term employees, and said front-of-house tipped workers and back-of-house workers face different pay levels. She also said Minnesota’s tip rules and lack of a tip credit create challenges for the industry. During questioning, members discussed wage disparities, the makeup of her workforce, and the practical effects of the proposals. Opposition testimony came from Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project and Eric Bernstein of We Make Minnesota, both of whom argued the bills are regressive, poorly targeted, and costly. They said the deductions would mainly benefit higher earners, violate horizontal equity by treating similar incomes differently, and could encourage compensation restructuring. They also warned the combined cost would exceed $500 million over the 2028-29 biennium and could pressure funding for health care, education, and other public services. Mark Havenman of the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence similarly criticized the bills on tax fairness and administrative grounds, noting the federal tip deduction framework is still under development and could create enforcement issues. Nonpartisan staff provided revenue estimates showing HF 3524 would reduce general fund revenue by about $365.9 million in fiscal 2027 and HF 3525 by about $126 million in fiscal 2027, with smaller ongoing impacts in later years. Members also raised questions about how the bills would be paid for and what income would qualify under the overtime deduction.

Transcript Highlights:

• on the fact that there's no fiscal note for the entire bill.
• I guess, Chair Novotny, I'll just note that, you know, you have the fiscal note in front of you.
• And I'll just note that the DE does have increased penalties that we believe would create a fiscal note
• Just want to hammer down on the fiscal note here.
• Just want to hammer down on the fiscal note here.

Bills: HF2354, HF3407, HF4359, HF4192, HF3356, HF3695, HF1597, HF3155, HF3871, HF4437, HF4446, HF3990

Keywords: medical assistance, fraud prevention, subpoena authority, criminal penalties, consumer protection, ghost guns, unserialized firearms, 3D-printed guns, 3D printer firearms, CNC milling, home-built firearms, firearm serialization, serial numbers, unfinished frame, unfinished receiver, ghost gun ban, gun control, firearm design files, CAD files, digital gun blueprints

Transcript Highlights:

• You'll note the red bar is not very big.
• We might have dynamic fiscal notes that could take into account potential economic growth that a certain
• I do want to note, and I'll get into sourcing more in a little bit, but I do want to note to just get
• You probably generated a fiscal note for implementation. Do you remember? Yeah, we did. Yes.
• Will we see an updated fiscal note that more accurately reflects your true costs as opposed to those

Summary: The committee first received a presentation from Dr. Reich on the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council (ERFC), including how the council’s joint executive-legislative forecasting process works, the main state revenue sources, and recent economic conditions. He said Washington’s economy is slowing, with weak employment growth, softer taxable sales, and uncertainty from tariffs, federal spending, and the federal shutdown. He also noted that the September forecast was reduced, mainly because of lower sales tax and real estate excise tax collections, and that the state still expects modest growth rather than a recession. Members asked about whether Washington tends to lag national downturns and how forecast information should affect budgeting; Dr. Reich said the forecast is a revenue tool, not a budgeting decision, and that spending choices remain with elected officials. The Department of Revenue then presented on Washington’s sales and use tax structure and the implementation of Senate Bill 5814, which expands retail sales tax to several services effective October 1, 2025. Steve Ewing explained how sales and use tax are sourced, how reseller permits and the multiple points of use exemption work, and how the new law applies to live presentations, temporary staffing, investigations and security services, IT services, custom website development, advertising services, and custom software. He said DOR held listening sessions, issued interim guidance, and set up a centralized landing page and outreach efforts to help taxpayers understand the changes. He also described a six-month grace period for certain pre-existing contracts through March 31, 2026, but said penalties and interest still apply under the statute. Committee members raised concerns about how businesses and individuals will know when a service is taxable, who is responsible for collecting and remitting tax, and how sourcing will work for services delivered across multiple locations or online. DOR staff walked through examples involving accounting services, live lectures, virtual events, advertising campaigns, and search engine marketing, including the use of reasonable allocation and pool codes when exact sourcing data is unavailable. Members also questioned the administrative burden on small businesses and professionals newly subject to tax, and whether additional legislative fixes or relief from penalties and interest may be needed. No votes or formal actions were taken in the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THIS MODEL WAS USED TO IMPLEMENT $150 MILLION THAT WAS APPROPRIATED IN FISCAL YEAR
• FISCAL YEAR 2019 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2024 2025 THE LEGISLATURE HAS APPROPRIATED BETWEEN 19 MILLION TO
• IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE TWO TIERS HAVE FISCAL COMPONENTS VERSUS TIER TWO, FOUR, AND FIVE THAT DO
• NOT HAVE A FISCAL OUTCOME WHICH COMES LATER IN THE PRESENTATION.
• TIER ONE AND T3 IS HEAVY FISCAL ORIENTED.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it'll change through the end of this fiscal year.
• But so that's To build again in the second fiscal year of the biennium.
• And as such, they didn't have a fiscal impact. But that's why I listed them.
• For fiscal year 26 and then fiscal year 27, we've got $26 and $29 million.
• That one time and not 12 times over the course of a fiscal year.

Summary: The Government Finance Committee met with new leadership, approved the December 11 minutes, and received a series of informational updates on the state’s finances and related policy issues. The Office of Management and Budget reported the general fund is tracking very close to forecast, with revenues about $2 million above forecast and an estimated ending balance of about $397 million, higher than previously expected. OMB also reviewed balances in major funds, including the budget stabilization fund, legacy fund, foundation aid stabilization fund, social services fund, and strategic investment and improvements fund, and answered questions about oil tax revenues and fund management. The Tax Department provided updates on taxable sales and purchases by county and industry, noting Cass County as the largest county by taxable sales and that retail trade remains the largest industry sector. Tax Commissioner Brian Kroshus also discussed the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its estimated effects on North Dakota income tax collections, explaining that the projected revenue impacts are measured against a 2025 baseline and that some provisions are temporary while others are permanent. He also reported that primary residence tax credit applications were running ahead of last year, with more than 154,000 received so far and an expectation of roughly 160,000-plus applications. The committee also heard fee-study presentations from the Department of Transportation and the Information Technology Department. DOT explained that driver’s license fees cover only about half of program costs and that the shortfall is subsidized by the highway fund, while also noting recent changes such as the blackout plate and motor vehicle excise tax distribution changes. NDIT described its internal service fund model, current billing structure, and possible future changes to simplify invoices and billing frequency. Legislative staff also updated the committee on office space needs in Bismarck-Mandan and on legislative branch space planning, and subcommittees reported progress on fixed-route transit funding and regional jail capacity, including a visit to the Burleigh-Morton detention facility and discussion of future prison bed needs. No formal votes or legislative actions beyond approving the minutes were taken, and the committee adjourned with its next meeting set for June 25.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's important to note that Judicial Council did a study ...cases.
• Their progress has to be noted.
• In terms of no fiscal or keyed no fiscal, our understanding of the process is sometimes that's an internal
• In terms of no fiscal or keyed no fiscal, our understanding of the process is sometimes that's an internal
• Owen noted that one possible solution was to...

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on Proposition 36 and its implementation, with judicial and budget officials describing it as a major shift from misdemeanor to felony processing for repeat drug possession and certain theft offenses. Witnesses explained that the law creates a treatment-mandated felony process that can lead to dismissal if a defendant completes treatment, but also requires evaluations, court monitoring, and potentially long, open-ended supervision. Judicial representatives said the new law is already generating large numbers of filings, creating workload, staffing, courtroom, and facility pressures, and that access to treatment beds, housing, and evaluation capacity is limiting participation. Several speakers emphasized that collaborative courts are effective but are not a perfect fit for Prop. 36 because those programs are typically probation-based and serve different risk/need populations. Court officials from San Bernardino and Orange counties said the impacts vary by county but are severe, with some counties seeing hundreds or more filings in a short period and others moving more slowly to build treatment infrastructure first. They argued that Prop. 36 is effectively an unfunded mandate unless the state provides more resources for judges, staff, facilities, treatment, housing, and supervision. The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that Prop. 36 will reduce the Proposition 47 savings that fund mental health and substance use treatment grants, but said the near-term reduction is relatively modest and that the full effect will take time to appear because of the way those savings are calculated. Members of the committee repeatedly raised concerns that the state is underfunding the courts and counties needed to carry out the new law. The committee also reviewed the Governor’s proposed trial court operations budget, including a partial restoration of a prior $97 million cut and additional ongoing funding. Judicial branch officials said the restoration helped avoid furloughs, hiring freezes, and service reductions, and supported cybersecurity, technology, staffing, and records management. The LAO recommended that the Legislature seek more detail on how midyear restorations are handled and consider clarifying language for transferring unspent trial court trust fund monies to the General Fund. Finance said the flexibility in the ongoing funding was intentional and would be taken back for consideration. In a separate item, the committee heard testimony on a $6.3 million increase for Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal appointed counsel programs. Judicial officials and appellate project representatives said the system is facing a crisis because indigent appeals have risen sharply while the number of panel attorneys has fallen, leaving many cases waiting months for counsel. They argued the proposed increase would help but is still below what is needed to recruit and retain attorneys and prevent delays that affect criminal, juvenile, and child welfare cases. The committee also discussed the Tracy courthouse project in San Joaquin County, where local officials said reopening a courthouse closed since 2011 is necessary to serve a growing population and relieve overcrowding elsewhere. The LAO and Finance both noted the project is next in line under the facilities plan, though LAO suggested the Legislature could consider whether other facility priorities should come first.

Transcript Highlights:

• conditions and the state's competing fiscal priorities. ...overall fiscal conditions and the state's
• competing fiscal priorities.
• And yet some of our fiscal constraints might put pressure on those systems.
• We also note that there are signs that enrollment pressure has weakened.
• I'll also note the Department of Finance. No additional comments, but available for questions.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, chaired by Assemblymember Alvarez, held a hearing focused on University of California budget issues. The committee reviewed UC core operations funding, enrollment trends, federal funding threats, Title IX implementation, and basic needs support. Major themes included the end of the Governor’s multi-year UC compact, the state’s fiscal outlook, UC’s enrollment growth, and the potential impacts of federal policy changes on research, health care, and student aid. On core funding, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to continue compact-related support, defer some payments, and authorize a cash-flow loan. The LAO recommended a smaller or no base increase, earmarking some funds for capital renewal, retiring deferrals when possible, avoiding new compact commitments, and funding UC annually rather than through compacts. UC argued that the compact has supported enrollment growth, student services, and operating costs, but said campuses face rising expenses, structural deficits, and limited reserves. Members questioned the effects of deferrals on students and discussed the need to prioritize less harmful reductions if cuts become necessary. The enrollment panel focused on UC’s growth in California resident enrollment and the nonresident replacement plan at Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego. The LAO recommended maintaining the current enrollment target, funding enrollment separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident replacement plan, and holding enrollment flat in 2027-28. UC said it has already met compact enrollment goals, grown California undergraduate enrollment by about 18,800 students, and that further growth depends on ongoing state support. The committee also discussed the cost of enrollment growth, possible differential nonresident tuition, and a reporting request for UC to analyze the nonresident replacement approach; the motion to adopt supplemental reporting language passed. The hearing also covered federal funding risks, with the LAO and UC warning that federal changes could affect research grants, medical center reimbursement, and student financial aid. UC said research cancellations and suspensions are disrupting labs and graduate student support, while federal health policy changes could increase uncompensated care at UC hospitals. In the Title IX update, UC described its systemwide civil rights structure, annual student training, and campus support offices, and members praised the work while asking about ongoing concerns and intersegmental collaboration. The final basic-needs item began with Finance stating the Governor’s budget does not change ongoing support, but the transcript cuts off before further discussion or action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, the fiscal note does show 176,000.
• Um, the fiscal note does show 176,000.
• Um, the fiscal note does show 176,000.
• Um, the fiscal note does show 176,000.
• Um, the fiscal note does show 176,000.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all