Transcript Highlights:

• following fiscal year. following fiscal year.
• <01:04:58.559> year fiscal at the beginning of fiscal year fiscal at the beginning of fiscal
• Two points of note. We're not requesting new positions in the fiscal year 2027 budget request.
• Concerns were noted.
• There were some issues noted.

Keywords: Appropriations - Room 216, 22 January, 2026; 8:00 AM, 925, all

Summary: The hearing began with the State Board of Architecture’s budget presentation. The executive director described the board’s mission to regulate architecture, landscape architecture, and certified interior design to protect public health and safety. He highlighted the board’s consolidated structure, license totals, high reciprocity rate, recent rule changes to reduce barriers to practice, and a proposed FY 2027 budget of $368,123, which included a 5% staff salary increase and higher operating costs. He also noted a newly identified need to modernize the licensing system, estimated at at least $25,000, and asked that the board not be reduced below the requested level. A board member also praised the small staff’s responsiveness and effectiveness. The State Board of Public Accountancy then presented its budget and policy requests. The executive director said the board regulates CPAs and CPA firms, oversees the CPA exam process, and has about 3,600 active individual licensees and 800 firms. The board requested only a 3% compensation increase for staff, plus a special request to allow an audit supervisor to repay the cost of a Becker review course through payroll deduction as part of succession planning. She also described a board-approved waiver program that began January 1, eliminating application fees for CPA exam candidates and retakes; 42 candidates had used the waiver in the first two weeks. In response to questions, she said the board does not assist CPAs with IRS disputes, but it does investigate complaints from the IRS, SEC, PCAOB, or others. Finally, a representative presented for the Board of Licensed Professional Counselors. She explained that the board regulates licensed counselors and psychotherapy providers, meets frequently, and has two staff members. The board’s main request was for additional investigative capacity: a full-time investigator and related funding, because complaints are currently handled by part-time investigators, contractors, and sometimes board members, which can require recusals from hearings. She said the state auditor had recently flagged complaint backlogs at regulatory agencies, supporting the request. The board also sought funding for a contractual administrative position, salary progressions, and a one-time technology increase to modify its new licensing system for the counseling compact and better search functions. Members questioned the board about its large cash balance, which was reported at about $860,000, and whether it should provide fee relief or other benefits to members; the presenter said the board would look into that and noted that revenues had increased significantly in recent years, partly due to out-of-state and telehealth-related licensing demand.

Transcript Highlights:

• all waiting for this great fiscal note coming soon.
• this like pre fiscal note work that we this like pre fiscal note work that we at<01:07:32.799>
• /c> forward without a fiscal note but I know forward without a fiscal note but I know it's<01:24:40.400
• note on this anticipate the the fiscal note on this to to to be<01:42:25.199> representative<
• and I don't I think that that fiscal and I don't I think that that fiscal note<01:42:57.719>

Bills: HF1, HF1384

Keywords: Office of Inspector General, inspector general, legislative audit, fraud prevention, waste and abuse, public funds, grant oversight, state grants, grant management, whistleblower protection, retaliation, subpoena power, data practices, government transparency, accountability, law enforcement referrals, sanctions, debarment, payment withholding, public assistance fraud

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the Chief Fiscal Officer for the Department of Consumer Affairs.
• Can you just share what the fiscal capacity challenges were for this?
• I'm the chief fiscal officer at the Department of Industrial Relations.
• I'll note two of the items are for ongoing IT projects at DIR.
• As I noted, we're going to be operational in 2026-27.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee held a May Revision budget hearing on state administration and related issues, hearing presentations from multiple departments and agencies. Early items included the Public Employment Relations Board on funding for implementation of AB 1 and a reduced request tied to AB 288, the Governor’s Office of Service and Community Engagement on a technical College Corps adjustment, and the Secretary of State on building security upgrades, election security grant matching funds, and payroll system readiness costs. The Department of Consumer Affairs presented a Board of Pharmacy modernization request and a General Fund backfill for the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education; the LAO raised no concerns on the pharmacy item but recommended rejecting the private postsecondary backfill and questioned interest-free loan language. The Employment Development Department outlined several large workload and benefit adjustments, including EDD Next document management funding, UI loan interest, DI/PFL benefit increases, WIOA adjustments, school employee benefits, an EMT training reappropriation, and a technical reversion correction; the LAO flagged the size of the DI/PFL increase and the expansion of the document management scope, while members asked about program impacts and timelines. The California Workforce Development Board presented an April adjustment to reimbursement authority for an interagency agreement with Caltrans, which the LAO said raised no concerns. Public comment on that item and others included support for workforce and apprenticeship initiatives, including the Jails to Jobs proposal and renewal of the Apprenticeship Innovation Fund, though those were not part of the May Revision package. The Department of Industrial Relations then presented several proposals: reclassifying legal positions, continuing modernization of the workers’ compensation EAMS system, Cal/OSHA data modernization, creating a Cal/OSHA emerging technologies unit, reappropriating funds for the California Opportunity Youth Apprenticeship program, and trailer bill changes requiring electronic payment of employer assessments and adjusting the statutory treatment of the workers’ compensation administrative director’s salary. The LAO generally found the IT and salary proposals reasonable but urged close monitoring of the new emerging technologies unit. Committee members, especially Assemblymember Ortega, pressed DIR on long vacancy rates, wage theft claim delays, low collection rates for Cal/OSHA fines, and whether new resources would improve outcomes; DIR said it was pursuing recruitment, classification reviews, and process modernization, while the LAO noted that staffing alone may not explain the delays. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board also sought to make permanent a 2024 change to the 60-day reconsideration clock, saying it had reduced backlog and interim orders; the LAO had no concerns. Finally, the Department of Human Resources presented a statewide Employee Assistance Program contract consolidation that would lower costs compared with renewing separate contracts and requested one program manager position to oversee the contract and first responder services; the hearing continued with Finance’s response after the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Carpenter, I don't know, was there a fiscal note part of this?
• Was there a fiscal note part of this? I don't remember seeing it.
• Okay, Madam Chair, I don't understand how there could be a fiscal note then.
• note is referring to and what the fiscal impact would be.
• According to the fiscal note attached to the bill, it does say that since fiscal year 2023, DES has been

Bills: SB1095, SB1114, SB1116, SB1162, SB1164, SB1178, SB1179, SB1249, SB1253, SB1346, SB1347, SB1446, SB1561, SB1813

Keywords: gender transition, minors, irreversible surgery, health professionals, puberty-blocking drugs, medical procedures, prohibition, Arizona Revised Statutes, behavioral health, patient brokering, appropriation, state funds, Maricopa County, claims review, medical necessity, American Indian health program, healthcare regulations, healthcare compliance, behavioral health technicians, licensing

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 1114, which would appropriate $1 million to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to investigate behavioral health patient brokering statewide. Sponsor Sen. Karen Werner described the bill as a response to fraud involving vulnerable Native Americans and said the county attorney would investigate the whole state. Some members questioned why the Attorney General was not handling the work and whether the funding should go to a county office, while others supported the effort. The committee voted 10-1 with one present to give SB 1114 a due pass recommendation. The committee then considered Senate Bill 1116, which would require that denials or adverse appeal decisions on behavioral health claims for the American Indian Health Program be reviewed by someone with at least two years of relevant clinical experience. Access testified neutral but said the bill’s language was too broad and could increase appeals and staffing needs, estimating about $490,000 for eight FTEs. Sen. Werner said the bill was meant to prevent inappropriate denials by reviewers without relevant expertise. Members raised concerns about definitions and staffing, and the committee approved the bill 7-4 with one present. Senate Bill 1346 would require Access to notify providers of claim deficiencies within 72 hours and decide corrected claims within 10 business days. Supporters said the measure would reduce long delays and help providers stay afloat; Access said it was working on process improvements but warned the bill would require more staff and system changes, estimating about $580,000. The committee passed SB 1346 7-5. Senate Bill 1347, requiring insurance coverage for fertility preservation services for cancer patients at risk of infertility, drew strong support from cancer survivors and advocates, with insurers neutral; the committee passed it unanimously 12-0. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1813, which would require Arizona State Hospital admissions to be based on clinical need rather than county of residence. Supporters argued the Maricopa County cap unfairly delays treatment and is not required by the underlying court ruling, while ADHS warned the bill could conflict with the Arnold v. Sarn settlement and could shift access away from rural counties. After extensive discussion, the committee passed SB 1813 9-2 with one present. Finally, the committee began hearing Senate Bill 1178, which would allow naturopathic physicians to administer IV antibiotics, antivirals, and antifungals; the initial testimony was largely opposed by medical associations on patient-safety and training grounds, with supporters yet to testify in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Mueller from Senate Fiscal, as it is a Senate file, if you're okay with that, Dan. Yes, I am.
• And right here I'm just showing the fiscal year 2627 changes in the bill. The House was at base.
• The Senate was spending an additional $20 million out of the RDA, mostly in fiscal year 26.
• I'll note that that's at the bottom of the spreadsheet here.
• The first one is extending the fiscal year 24 appropriation to the University of St.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• These are the four items I previously noted with us.
• Also, I'd like to note on a few of these projects you'll see with the red border.
• You'll also note again for Springer, this is another one that's in green.
• First, I wanted to note our auditor for this final year was Cordova CPA LLC.
• As it was noted and the members of the board.

Transcript Highlights:

• program impact. necessary to maximize equity, fiscal necessary to maximize equity, fiscal accountability
• fiscal and had program impact. fiscal and had program impact.
• <00:09:06.080> some each RTC region, OEA staff noted some each RTC region, OEA staff noted
• In fiscal year 2024, KDE received $11.2 million in IDEA B preschool funding.
• raised in this report about fiscal raised in this report about fiscal oversight<00:18:23.039>

Keywords: Call to Order and Roll Call: 00:22 Office of Education Accountability Report: Early Childhood Regional Training Centers (RTCs): 01:22 Approval of July 14, 2025 Minutes 31:21 Office of Education Accountability: 2025 Study Agenda 32:35 Adjournment: 39:12, 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an Office of Education Accountability report on Kentucky’s early childhood regional training centers (RTCs). OEA said the centers provide valuable training, consultation, technical assistance, and materials for preschool personnel, especially for children with disabilities and at-risk students, and that the services align with state and federal requirements. However, the report found uneven student and teacher populations across regions, wide variation in per-student funding, some staffing data inaccuracies, and several fiscal oversight concerns, including inconsistent indirect cost rates, a building rental charge that may have been duplicative, and host districts recording RTC expenditures in a way that could blur them with district finances. OEA also said some documentation of progress toward goals was incomplete and that the technology lending library appeared underused. The report recommended stronger KDE oversight, uniform coding and accounting practices, review of budgets and expenditures, and an evaluation of whether the current five-center model remains the most efficient structure; OEA also suggested the General Assembly may wish to revisit KRS 157.318. Members asked about KDE’s response, whether the centers are required by federal law, how the centers operate, and whether changing the model would affect federal funding. OEA said KDE had only discussed the findings informally and had not issued a formal response, the centers are required by state law but not federal law, and changing the model would not jeopardize IDEA preschool funds. The committee accepted the report by motion. The subcommittee then approved the minutes from its July 14, 2025 meeting after initially delaying action because quorum was not yet present. After that, members turned to the Office of Education Accountability’s proposed 2026 study agenda. OEA said the three proposed topics are the annual district data profiles, facilities funding, and implementation of early literacy statutes. The district profiles would add an appendix showing the number and percentage of students moving to private school or homeschool by district and another appendix noting data-quality issues that affect comparability. OEA explained that district staffing data can undercount contract staff because those employees are not always entered into the system, and members expressed interest in tracking whether prior recommendations were implemented. One senator also raised a separate interest in reviewing whether KDE created and implemented regulations related to KFIX. The discussion remained informational, with no final vote on the study agenda shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I will end on slide 10 and just note how are we implementing this moving forward?
• As noted, that does not just impact—it's going to impact California quite a bit.
• I'll bring up a couple of items related to fiscal oversight and the 30% cap.
• I would like to note that the programs are distinctly different.
• year 23-24 through fiscal year 27-28, ensuring long-term fiscal stability of the department. and its

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll also note on line 163, $34...
• I'll also note...
• And that's in a little note on the item.
• , so fiscal year 24.
• So, the fiscal year starts July 1.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is it like the fiscal note for the bills? Yeah, fiscal note. Oh, okay, yeah, can do.
• I have the fiscal note for ESSP 55357 because it was introduced in the Senate, but I don't have that
• House fiscal note.
• So I'm not sure, since the fiscal note will be kind of the foundation...
• I'm not sure, since the fiscal note will be kind of the foundation of some of our discussion.

Summary: The committee approved the May minutes by roll call vote and then received brief updates from the Attorney General’s office and the Office of the State Actuary. The AG’s office said it would handle legal analysis related to the committee’s work, while the actuary reported that staff were at capacity this summer due to annual valuation work, experience studies, and other retirement system projects, but would have more capacity in the fall. Members also requested access to fiscal note and actuarial materials related to the LEOFF 1 study and related legislation. The main discussion focused on the LEOFF 1 study, including actuarial funding, a proposed merger/termination/restatement approach, and the possibility of a permanent COLA for Plan 1 members. Several members supported keeping COLA recommendations in the committee’s work, while others raised concerns about whether merging or restating plans could affect benefits, legal status, or IRS tax treatment. The actuary explained that the temporary pause in certain funding rates reflected prior overfunding buffers and assumptions about future investment returns, and said future base-rate funding could still be needed depending on experience. Members also discussed constituent correspondence, which staff said largely fell into four categories: the LEOFF 1 study, Plan 1 benefits and COLAs, fossil fuel divestment, and ESSB 5357. The committee agreed that divestment concerns are more appropriately directed to the State Investment Board, not this committee. In reviewing the draft interim work plan, members added or adjusted several topics for future meetings, including a July educational briefing on LEOFF 1 history and tax/IRS issues, a September discussion of COLAs, and a December placeholder for excess compensation/pension spiking, pending coordination with the LEOFF 2 Board. The committee then approved the July agenda and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• You will see that there is a fiscal note, but even with the fiscal note, the cost will be covered by
• Some of my concerns regarding the fiscal notes from MnDOT include...
• In the fiscal notes, MnDOT... Mr. Fennice? Yes.
• The Ways and Means Committee will be addressing the fiscal note.
• So it's work we're working on, but one takeaway from the fiscal note is that the cost, even though it

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, you've probably read the fiscal note, which says that the robotics fund is fully encumbered.
• Um, I haven't done a fiscal note on this.
• <01:46:31.360> note<01:46:31.520> on um we haven't done a fiscal note on um we haven't
• done a fiscal note on this.<01:46:31.840> We<01:46:32.000> just<01:46:32.159> received
• The dollars aren't pointed out here in note two or note three, nor are they pointed out in note five,

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• FN stands for fiscal note. This is a fiscal committee, and we need to touch on that fiscal note.
• We're not looking for a Manhattan Project. um the the fiscal note said the cost um the the fiscal note
• <04:09:48.040> note surprised that there was a fiscal note surprised that there was a fiscal
• note we're we only complete fiscal notes note we're we only complete fiscal notes when<04:15:00.760
• 04:15:13.040> address<04:15:13.439> that fiscal note and I want address that fiscal note

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on HB 366, which would increase school building aid for eligible projects. Representative Cahill, the prime sponsor, said the bill would raise the annual minimum from $50 million to $60 million and help address a long backlog of school construction and renovation needs after years of a moratorium on applications. He argued that districts forced to build during the moratorium were left to shoulder costs through local property taxes, and he cited examples such as Londonderry, Claremont, and other communities with aging or inadequate facilities. He also said the current aid structure, including paying 80% upfront and 20% at completion, concentrates too much spending at once and limits how many projects can be funded. Several committee members asked about the fairness and structure of the program. Representative Maguire questioned whether aid should be distributed more broadly to all districts rather than only a few selected projects, and Representative Luneau noted that the committee would also be considering related bills on catastrophic aid, special education aid, and the school foundation formula. Cahill responded that building aid has historically been targeted to property-poor communities and that the state should be a reliable partner in school construction. He also said the bill includes a small retroactive component for communities that built during the moratorium, which he described as a compromise. Testimony in support came from Representative Cluder, who described Claremont’s Stevens High School project as a case where a bond issue narrowly failed and the city later had to fund renovations without state aid, contributing to high property taxes. He said the bill would help property-poor communities and urged passage. Tony Weinstein of New Market also supported the bill, saying his community had serious facility and safety needs, had moved forward with scaled-back renovations during the moratorium, and still faced debt-service burdens without state participation. Robert Thompson, superintendent in Hampstead, testified that his district needs an addition for overcrowding, safety, and special education space, and said building aid would help reduce out-of-district placements and transportation costs. No vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• What's the fiscal note on this? I didn't hear you. How much would come from the fiscal note?
• I don't really know what the fiscal note would be.
• I don't really know what the fiscal note would be.
• I think the fiscal note was $10 million on it. The fiscal note was $10 million on it.
• What's the fiscal note on having those interpreters?

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But the question I do have is, um, have we requested a fiscal note?
• But the question I do have is, um, have we requested a fiscal note?
• Chair, members, um, yes, a fiscal note has been requested, but Mr.
• I appreciate the explanation. instantaneously have a uh a fiscal note instantaneously have a uh a fiscal
• Chair, members, um, yes, a fiscal note has been requested, but Mr.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Governor's environmental fiscal year 2026-2027 budget recommendations.
• One thing I believe is important to note is that in fiscal year 2024-25, the department received a million
• For fiscal year 2026-27, the commission has requested a total of 14...
• The number of cases filed at PERC in the 2022-23 fiscal year was 329.
• Currently, the state has 29 fiscally constrained counties.

Summary: The committee first took up confirmation of five water management district appointees: Ted Everett and Jerome Pate to the Northwest Florida Water Management District, Michael Romano to the Big Cypress Basin Board of the South Florida Water Management District, and Paul Bissfam, John Hall, and Virginia Johns to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Senator McClain moved confirmation, the roll was called, and the committee recommended all appointees favorably. Members then received the Governor’s Florida First budget presentations for environmental agencies. The environmental package totaled about $5.8 billion and emphasized Everglades restoration, water quality, resilience, land conservation, state parks, hazardous waste cleanup, wildlife management, wildfire response, and citrus support. DEP highlighted more than $1.4 billion for water resources, including $810 million for Everglades restoration, $202 million for Resilient Florida, $150 million for Florida Forever, $70 million for state parks, and $221 million for contamination cleanup. FWC, Agriculture, and Citrus funding priorities were also outlined. Members asked about Florida Forever funding, state park wastewater and septic needs, a reduction at the Florida Wildlife Research Institute, and beach renourishment funding for storm damage. The committee also heard the General Government portion of the budget, which totaled about $2.9 billion and covered DBPR, Lottery, Financial Services, Management Services, Revenue, PERC, and the Gaming Control Commission. DBPR requested funds for license processing, an animal abuse hotline, fleet replacement, and IT retention. FGCC sought new enforcement squads and an IT licensing/enforcement system. The Lottery proposed marketing, retail engagement, IT, and retention funding. DMS emphasized building modernization, fleet telematics, 911 and radio upgrades, cybersecurity, a local government cybersecurity grant program, and data interoperability. PERC described a sharp increase in labor cases and elections after SB 256 and requested staffing, election administration, and hearing officer pay increases. DFS highlighted My Safe Florida Home, fire marshal and first responder support, financial investigations, and gold and silver legal tender implementation. Revenue requested operational and IT funding and support for fiscally constrained counties. Questions focused on DBPR’s condo and HOA initiatives, cybersecurity grant reductions, and the My Safe Florida Home program’s abandoned grants and matching requirements. No additional votes were taken, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a humongous fiscal note on this, in other words.
• I think the fiscal note is probably is probably inaccurate because I think that you would be back investing
• Actually the fiscal note is something I would have to defer to LBB on I can talk about the value loss
• Chairman, I if you're saying that the fiscal note makes counties whole then absolutely I agree thank
• So the fiscal note associated with this bill is for the state to make school districts whole for the

Bills: HB8, HB9, HJR1, HB22, HB8, HB9, HJR1, HB22

Keywords: HB 8, school finance, compressed tax rate, maximum compressed tax rate, MCR, PYMCR, property tax, school district taxes, Education Code, Tax Code, state aid, school funding formula, local school taxes, Texas school finance, tax rate compression, public education funding, ad valorem tax, tangible personal property, income-producing property, business personal property

Transcript Highlights:

• I did not mention, and unfortunately in my notes...
• You also allocated us another $2 million in this fiscal year, current fiscal year.
• year, and $74 million for the 2026-27 fiscal year.
• You know, as you noted, it's a function of the market.
• Funds will be exhausted at the end of fiscal year 2026-27.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the May Revision from the Department of Finance and comments from the Legislative Analyst’s Office on the state’s overall budget condition and natural resources proposals. Finance said the May Revision keeps the budget balanced in 2026-27 and 2027-28, reduces the structural deficit, and includes major natural resources items such as Proposition 4 climate bond spending, including up to $125 million for the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, $23.2 million for wildlife refuge and wetland projects, $25 million for Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, $25 million for Bay-Delta environmental flows, $1 million for coexisting-with-wildlife work, and $2.5 million for cancer-risk research. The LAO said revenues remain strong but argued the budget still relies too heavily on reserves, recommended more savings and fewer new discretionary expenditures, and urged the Legislature to prioritize only urgent health and safety needs while planning for uncertainty in greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues. Members focused heavily on the Golden Gate Fields purchase, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, the wildlife coexistence initiative, and cap-and-invest funding for transit. On Golden Gate Fields, agency officials said the property is a time-limited, once-in-a-generation opportunity, that the state’s contribution would help secure the acquisition, and that the land would ultimately transfer to East Bay Regional Park District, which would assume operations and maintenance. Officials said the site would be remediated by the current owner, the state would use deed restrictions to prevent commercial development, and the remaining purchase price would be covered by nonstate partners. On Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, Finance and the Natural Resources Agency said the $25 million would support scientific monitoring and early implementation of the Bay-Delta plan update, while the LAO questioned the timing and said the request was premature until the Water Board formally adopts the plan. The committee also discussed the coexisting-with-wildlife proposal and wolf-livestock conflict. Finance said the May Revision’s $1 million proposal would backfill existing funds to support limited-term staffing, deterrence tools, and conflict response, while members and the California Cattlemen’s Association said the need is larger and includes direct loss compensation, indirect loss compensation, and nonlethal deterrence. The Cattlemen’s Association said private insurance is limited and often inadequate for these losses. Members also raised concerns about the greenhouse gas reduction fund and transit, warning that lower auction revenues and possible CARB rule changes could leave major transit and other tier-three priorities underfunded. The LAO recommended planning for multiple revenue scenarios and reconsidering the current cap-and-invest spending framework. No votes or formal actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• As noted earlier, grant funding on this does end next year.
• They can read the call notes.
• I also want to note that under substance use prevention, for fiscal year 25, these were all new prevention
• of work for fiscal year 2026.
• or being the fiscal agent.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so did fiscal grant the $397,000? Yes, that was approved by fiscal. Thank you.
• And so did fiscal grant the $397,000? Yes, that was approved by fiscal.
• And so did fiscal grant the $397,000? Yes, that was approved by fiscal. Thank you.
• And so did fiscal grant the $397,000? Yes, that was approved by fiscal. Thank you. Okay.
• year 18 through the current fiscal year 18 through the current fiscal<03:31:09.120> year fiscal

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the University System of New Hampshire chancellor on the system’s budget, enrollment, finances, workforce role, and response to federal policy changes. The chancellor said the governor’s recommended budget would reduce university system funding by about $16.5 million over the biennium, or roughly 8.3%, and asked that state funding be held at the governor’s level. She described planned cost reductions already underway, including lower headcount, reduced benefits and retirement contributions, property sales, and lease reductions, and said the system expects to remove about $20 million from its cost structure in fiscal year 2026. A large portion of the discussion focused on enrollment and finances. The chancellor said fall 2024 enrollment was about 23,000, with New Hampshire enrollment increasing for the first time since 2013, and noted that the system remains a major workforce pipeline, with about 3,000 graduates entering the state workforce each year. She explained that net tuition has fallen over time because of declining enrollment and increased financial aid, while research grants and contracts have grown significantly. She also walked through endowment funding, explaining that payouts are based on a 12-quarter rolling average and are intentionally smoothed to reduce volatility; members asked for follow-up information on payout comparisons, administrative salaries, headcounts, and compensation per student. Members questioned the university about the relationship between state support, tuition, endowments, and research spending. The chancellor said the system has used state capital support to leverage major investments, including the UNH Life Sciences building, Plymouth’s Hyde Hall, and the Olson Advanced Manufacturing Center, and described partnerships with businesses such as Lonza and regional manufacturers. She also explained a long-running New Hampshire 529-related revenue stream that has built endowment support for scholarships, and said the system’s endowment now totals about $988 million. In response to questions about possible cuts, she said the system is considering academic program sharing, consolidation of specialties, online delivery, AI-assisted administrative efficiencies, and footprint reductions, but declined to name specific programs. The committee also discussed DEI-related issues and federal grants. The chancellor said the system is reviewing executive orders and a U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague letter, and that general counsel is working through websites, programs, and more than 1,200 federal grants to ensure compliance. She said the system spends about $3 million on what it calls DEI-related offices and services, but emphasized that these services include disability support, veteran support, Title IX, ADA, and employment-law compliance, and that the system does not have race-based programs, separate housing, or separate graduation ceremonies. She reported that the system had received stop-work orders on four federal grants totaling about $700,000 and warned that reductions in federal direct or indirect costs could affect research, jobs, and innovation.