Transcript Highlights:

• We're not going to do the budget.
• Let's see what you create inside your budget.
• So we'll start with budget presentations.
• So we'll start with budget presentations.
• So same operating budget process.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm accepting the committee amendments that were offered, and it's noted in the analysis.
• As you know, it's my second year as the chair on the assembly side of the health budget subcommittee,
• . but ...behind what we all voted on last night in terms of this budget.
• That is, in our budget, we are going to be considering that in the next little bit.
• I would at ...by another year of analysis in its consideration.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• a few years ago, and we do have the Legislative Auditor who's uh been commissioned to conduct an analysis
• So, to be clear, uh, your budgeting So, to be clear, uh, your budgeting process<00:09:16.280>
• here to assist as is our budget here to assist as is our budget director,<00:22:41.880> Sam
• <01:04:27.040> and um a performance analysis and um a performance analysis and discussion.
• <01:04:33.680> of So, what we did was an analysis of So, what we did was an analysis of deployed

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, you are correct that any standards passed by the board, we have to do an analysis, and the analysis
• <00:31:33.760> and budget and budget and so<00:31:35.559> um<00:31:36.039> we'll
• we have to do an analysis and the analysis<00:32:14.960> kind<00:32:15.080> of<00:32:15.200
• nursing homes, and so we have presented that in the governor's budget.
• budget 2% cap is proposal, and the holiday pay is already in effect.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is Assembly Budget Subcommittee 2 on Human Services.
• This is made possible due to efforts from legislative action that happened in the last budget cycle,
• With regards to the federal budget next year, we have not seen any official budget proposals for our
• budget of 2026 will have on our programs.
• Ultimately, the federal budget is... CSD's programs like LIHEAP and CSBG.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services heard an overview of efforts to streamline access to safety net programs and move toward more automatic, person-centered enrollment. CDSS, DHCS, and CalHHS described current cross-enrollment between Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and CalWORKs, including data showing high overlap among programs and a text-message outreach pilot that increased CalWORKs applications and enrollments but reached only a small share of potentially eligible people. Witnesses emphasized barriers such as differing federal eligibility rules, data-sharing limits, privacy concerns, and the need for better technology, consent management, and stakeholder engagement. Members pressed the administration on how to institutionalize these efforts across administrations and asked for concrete budgetary and regulatory steps to support “no wrong door” enrollment and automatic referrals. The committee also reviewed several chair priorities. On the proposed foster care multi-agency office, CDSS said existing coordination structures already address much of the intended work and asked to verify prior fiscal scoring. On the Employment First Office, CalHHS explained that the office’s $1 million budget was eliminated in the 2024-25 budget as part of deficit reductions, while noting that employment for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities remains an administration priority through existing departmental coordination. For the food insecurity proposal, CDSS said it could provide technical assistance but would need new data-sharing agreements, could not separately calculate a CFAP participation rate with current data, and would likely need until July 1, 2027, plus ongoing staffing, to complete the requested report. The mandated reporter proposal drew support for reform, with CDSS estimating low-millions in one-time training costs and ongoing costs in the hundreds of thousands. The subcommittee also discussed a guaranteed income proposal. CalHHS suggested drafting new statutory language and considering a county-administered model rather than a state-run competitive grant process to reduce administrative burden, while members and public commenters urged support for AB 661 and a study of a permanent statewide guaranteed income program. Public testimony also supported automatic enrollment, community-supporting mandated reporting reforms, and cash assistance for fire recovery. In the final items, CSD described how local nonprofit partners helped during the Los Angeles fires with food, housing vouchers, transportation, and emergency energy assistance, and explained that LIHEAP and CSBG remain important but limited tools for disaster response. CSD also said recent federal staffing cuts and possible future federal budget threats could affect LIHEAP and CSBG administration, though no immediate service disruptions had occurred and additional LIHEAP funds were expected to be released soon.

Transcript Highlights:

• we brought an amendment to address several of the deficiencies that we had recognized through an analysis
• of the number of beds, that analysis of the number of beds, that that<00:18:59.480> was<00:18
• I don't doubt that through our budgeting process annually, we will see updates from the department in
• The analysis that was 1st fiscal note.
• So, a $46.8 billion budget this year, and it's going to cost money to do this, right?

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In the current budget year, you're projecting revenues that you then true-up in the next budget year
• In response to a governor's budget proposal to make some changes to the budget stabilization account
• The first is saving for future emergencies, budget emergencies.
• So, our first point is that improving the budget stabilization.
• a budget problem in the first place.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, we're talking about the economic analysis tool.
• And so that, you know, in this analysis, the new analysis, that would be a part of what is looked at
• in figuring the cost-benefit analysis.
• working up a use attainability analysis.
• I thought we made great progress today on the economic analysis.

Summary: The committee opened its third interim meeting with roll call, approved the November 13, 2025 minutes, and the chair reviewed prior committee work, including a denied request for a fertilizer-capacity study and a planned later discussion of the Union Pacific/Norfolk Southern merger issue. Commissioner Doug Goring then presented Department of Agriculture updates on uncrewed aerial systems grants to detect noxious weeds, the state’s irrigation potential, the low-carbon fuels program for ethanol plants, the Environmental Impact Mitigation Fund, model zoning ordinances for animal feeding operations, and fertilizer production and supply in North Dakota. Members asked about funding sources, fertilizer storage and availability, natural gas and water needs for future fertilizer plants, and how the model zoning website would help counties and townships apply setback and odor tools. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on the Department of Water Resources’ economic analysis tool for water conveyance and flood-related projects. Dr. Dwayne Poole explained that the department is proposing changes to better account for end-of-useful-life conditions and updated hydrologic data, while still limiting the model to direct, demonstrable costs and benefits. He said the goal is to make the analysis more realistic and consistent without changing statute, and he provided examples of how project benefits could change as drains age or as rainfall and flood data evolve. Committee members and water-user representatives generally supported continued work on the proposal, while raising concerns about downstream impacts, closed-basin projects, and whether the changes would meaningfully affect project approvals. The committee then heard from John Paskowski, state engineer, on Devil’s Lake, the West End and East End outlets, and the Tolna Coulee control structure. He reviewed lake history, outlet capacities, sulfate and downstream flow limits, and explained that the control structure is intended to prevent a catastrophic uncontrolled release by slowing erosion and head cutting. Members asked about water quality trends, the length of the downstream flow constraint, and whether the Tolna Coulee area had been studied for possible natural overflow or silt buildup. The discussion emphasized ongoing flooding concerns, mitigation for affected landowners, and the need to balance outlet operations with downstream water quality and infrastructure protection.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:09:11.040> and include your your capital budgets and include your your capital budgets
• So, my analysis generous right now.
• Um for many years that capital budget.
• For example, the last couple of<00:19:58.320> budget<00:19:58.640> was of budget was of
• again on the public works capital budget again on the public works capital budget committee,<00:

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard testimony from State Treasurer Monica Misipelli on House Bill 1042, which would increase the contingent credit limit for the BFA. She explained that under RSA 66 the state’s debt capacity is capped at 10% of unrestricted revenue, and that guaranteed debt counts in the calculation even though it is not direct debt. She said the state currently has about 65% of its capacity used, roughly $120 million of remaining room, and that raising the BFA contingent credit limit from $200 million to $450 million would reduce that capacity. She noted the state’s debt-to-revenue ratio is about 4.2%, that the state’s credit rating is not immediately affected by the guarantee program unless the state actually has to assume the liability, and suggested unused guarantee authorizations, such as one for the Peace Development Authority, could be reviewed in the future. Members asked whether a credit guarantee affects bonding ability like actual debt, what the usual debt level is relative to the statutory cap, and whether the increase would crowd out future capital borrowing. Misipelli answered that guarantees are included in the formula and do affect available capacity, though the current ratio remains manageable. She also said she had been using a $120 million benchmark for capital budget planning and was now modeling $130 million in future state debt. When asked whether the full $250 million increase was necessary, she deferred to the BFA, saying the question should be answered by the agency. James Key Wallace, executive director of the New Hampshire BFA and interim commissioner of Business and Economic Affairs, then testified in support of the bill. He said the request was driven by larger project costs over the last several decades, with construction inflation causing guarantees to be used up in bigger chunks, and by the fact that the BFA has been close to its current cap. He said the agency does not use taxpayer funds, has never had a payout on a guarantee in nearly 35 years, and requires collateral, reserves, and an 80% loan-to-value buffer. He told members the Senate had a similar bill to raise the limit to $400 million and that the BFA considered that range acceptable. In response to questions, he said a smaller increase such as $150 million would cover known transactions but might not provide enough runway for future opportunities, and he confirmed the bill was brought at the BFA’s request. He also said businesses consider housing availability when deciding whether to locate in New Hampshire, since housing and workforce are key location factors. At the end of the work session, the chair closed House Bill 1042 and opened House Bill 241, a bill on health insurance coverage of pain management services for chronic pain. Representative Nagel began introducing the bill and asked for copies of the treasurer’s debt-capacity report, but the transcript cuts off before any further action on HB 241.

Transcript Highlights:

• We still have some serious budgets to take care of.
• We still have some serious budgets to take care of.
• and other things to deal there's budgets and other things to deal with<00:39:57.119> you're<00
• <00:56:18.599> year 22 years during a recent budget year 22 years during a recent budget year
• But it doesn't mean that they necessarily would, based on this other analysis that's required.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• so the budget that you're happening so the budget that you're working<00:51:25.640> in<00:51:
• It's released after the budgets are set because the budgets are set in the previous year, right?
• set<01:02:04.440> so released after the budgets are set so released after the budgets are
• after the budgets are set because<01:02:06.960> the<01:02:07.160> budgets<01:02:07.440
• education w at all for the budgeting education w at all for the budgeting that's<01:20:07.560>

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:

• ><00:09:51.360> request<00:09:51.760> went budget bienium um the request went budget bienium
• Um leading up to the the bianial budget.
• Looked in the 2024 uh report, analysis.
• I think the key thing economic analysis.
• <00:31:52.880> So analysis if it if it is applicable.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:01 Attendance Roll Call: 00:01:26 Approval of Minutes: 00:02:27 Investment, Cash Flow, and Legislative Update: Bo Cracraft – Judicial Form Retirement System: 00:03:12 Ryan Barrow – Kentucky Public Pensions Authority: 00:21:52 Beau Barnes – Teachers’ Retirement System: 00:34:31 Adjournment: 01:07:25, 958, all

Summary: The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer, followed by a roll call confirming a quorum and approval of the prior minutes. A special guest, Dave Eager, was welcomed before the committee moved to presentations from retirement system officials. Bo Craycraft, executive director of the Judicial Form Retirement System, gave a quarterly update on investment performance, asset allocation, and cash flow. He said the plans had held up well amid market volatility, with fiscal year-to-date returns above benchmark and long-term returns remaining strong. He explained that the plans are targeted to a 70% equity/30% fixed-income allocation, that some cash is being held for cash-flow management, and that negative cash flow is expected because of funding and contribution levels. He also said Senate Bill 183, dealing with proxy voting and economic analysis for certain votes, was not expected to materially affect the plans because of their small number of holdings and Bear Trust’s long-term investment approach. Ryan Barrow and Erin Surrod then presented for the Kentucky Pension Authority. They reported positive quarterly performance across the retirement and insurance funds, though results varied by period and remained tied to broader market conditions. They said recent asset-allocation changes had been completed and the funds were now within target ranges. On cash flow, they noted some plans remained negative or near zero, with one plan benefiting from a large appropriation. In the legislative update, they described House Bill 30 as codifying an exclusion from pension-spiking calculations for across-the-board raises, and Senate Bill 10 as increasing retiree health insurance subsidies and changing employee health insurance contribution rules for certain CERS members beginning in 2026. They also said Senate Bill 183 would likely have limited impact, though the agency would review voting policies and incorporate any required economic-analysis procedures.

Transcript Highlights:

• This legislation deals with a culpability analysis for those sentences.
• This is a direct and fair way to help close our $6 billion budget gap.
• budget.
• This proposal creates a $1.7 billion gap in the state budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year.
• It helps us start to balance the budget.

Keywords: Scheduler, 972, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• budget.
• To include full funding in their budget. Okay, I think, Mr.
• Chair, we typically select the budget prepared by the legislature.
• So there's money to be dropped in there if we have the budget.
• Kramer Winningham on an economic contribution analysis.

Transcript Highlights:

• , which I encourage members to go see, uh, the work that was done with minimum disruption, within budget
• that was done with minimum disruption that was done with minimum disruption within<00:03:14.159> budget
• which was uh what we within budget which was uh what we appropriated<00:03:17.200> last<00:03
• They completed a comprehensive housing demand, or needs, analysis done by HousingAdvisors.com.
• <00:43:37.960> expenses I already shared that budgeted expenses I already shared that budgeted

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to today's Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Education Finance.
• Our analysis indicates otherwise.
• Certainly, budget challenge years make...
• And that was budgeted for $651 million.
• Did we anticipate that, and could we have budgeted that better?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• New Hampshire can achieve budget New Hampshire can achieve budget predictability<00:15:57.120>
• <00:17:10.480> Um<00:17:10.959> it's with the same uh budget.
• Um it's with the same uh budget.
• <01:28:44.639> process how does that affect the budget process how does that affect the budget
• would be pretty the state budget would be pretty catastrophic.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Committee to Study Long-Term Managed Care met to approve prior minutes and outline its schedule, with meetings set for September 24 and September 29 ahead of an October 1 report deadline. The chair said the committee would use the first two meetings to digest testimony, likely ask follow-up questions of DHS, and then work toward conclusions and a report format. The minutes from the previous meeting were approved unanimously. The main testimony came from Sharon Alexander of Amera Health, who argued in favor of moving from fee-for-service Medicaid long-term services and supports to a managed LTSS model. She described managed LTSS as a capitated, quality-driven system used in about 26 states, and said it can improve care coordination, accountability, access to home- and community-based services, and budget predictability. She cited Amera Health’s experience in Pennsylvania and Delaware, including care coordination, housing and transportation support, caregiver programs, and quality benchmarks tied to state oversight. She also said nursing facilities would remain an important option for people who need that level of care. Committee members asked about how the programs are administered, how rates are set, how care managers work, and how quality is measured. Alexander said states contract with managed care organizations at actuarially sound capitated rates, with annual contracts, reporting, and oversight. She explained that care managers typically conduct quarterly assessments and follow up after trigger events such as hospitalization, and that housing coordinators may assist with transitions to the community. On quality, she said states use CMS-related and HCBS benchmark measures covering service timeliness, care planning, transitions, and other outcomes, and that New Hampshire could build on existing metrics rather than starting from scratch. She also noted that rural areas face workforce and transportation challenges, which managed care plans try to address through technology and self-direction options.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so, what budget year after year.
• years ago they went through an analysis years ago they went through an analysis and<00:29:57.200
• And so the um of that was budgeted.
• budget. >> They did not. >> Okay.
• um did not put that into the budget. um did not put that into the budget.

Keywords: Appropriations - Room 409, 28 January, 2026; 1:30 P.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee heard budget presentations from the Mississippi Board of Pharmacy and the Mississippi State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, followed by the physical therapy board. The Pharmacy Board said it licenses pharmacists, technicians, students, and many facilities and supply-chain entities, including wholesalers, manufacturers, 3PLs, PBMs, and nonresident compounders. Its main requests were a 3% salary increase for specialized staff, about $118,000 for contract help to evaluate pharmacists with substance abuse or mental health issues under a recently passed public health bill, and additional IT spending authority for system upgrades and cloud migration. Members discussed the board’s role in protecting the public, vetting out-of-state facilities, and the need to keep sensitive data secure; no vote was taken. The Chiropractic Examiners board described itself as a small, contract-staffed agency with about 700 active licenses and a database system that is no longer supported by Microsoft. It said it had requested about $173,000, but the legislative budget recommendation was $134,000, and it needs roughly $40,000 more to upgrade or rebuild the system, including security fixes and online renewal capability. Members focused on the cybersecurity risk of using unsupported software and the need to protect personal information; the board also noted that its licensing data does not include banking information because payments are handled through the state portal. The Physical Therapy Board said it regulates physical therapists and physical therapist assistants, with 4,242 licenses and 252 complaints in the last fiscal year, and that demand for the profession continues to grow. Its requests included $6,000 in salary progression for long-serving staff, about $360 more in PDM salary authority, and roughly $38,610 for a one-time upgrade to its LMS licensing system, plus related cloud-migration costs. Senators noted the board’s strong reputation, discussed the burden of annual or biennial renewals, and supported the technology upgrade because the current system is no longer supported and could create liability risks if not addressed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now I’m going to turn to the analysis that you have in front of you.
• I'm honored to have our budget subcommittee chair, as well as Chair of Senate...
• I take it back as a budget share, specifically dealing with many of these issues.
• Because... ...analysis and in-depth look at how do we solve this issue?
• I've just completed a cost differential analysis.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then finally, line two is the SSTB notes revenue budgeted and others.
• This is the one that was in the budget for July, so this has been revised from 375.5 million to 537.4
• Analysis Report using 80,000 in state funding.
• So we do have that analysis.
• Inadequate support would lead to delays, miscommunication, or budget overruns.