Transcript Highlights:

• It is kind of too close to call and that we would come before you every year in the budget process and
• What's important to understand is they're working on this budget reconciliation process which allows
• Just a reminder on slide 12, again, the budget reconciliation process. This is where.
• Budget reconciliation is different than the annual appropriations process.
• Chair, um, Senator, those programs, uh, aren't part of the budget reconciliation process, so you don't

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we do look forward to continuing this conversation as we go through the budget process.
• The January budget proposed...
• The January budget proposed savings of $86 million associated with automating the process of terminating
• process as well.
• Please to present a budget for a department that does not include budget solutions per se.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Subsequent budget acts.
• The 2022 Budget Act agreement established a new funding floor starting in this budget year 2025-2026
• This PAL process.
• It's a very bumpy process. process, and so my concern is that this has not gone through the, I guess,
• I can speak to some of the thought process for the original approvals in the 2020 Budget Act.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a proposal in the Governor's budget for a study of California's curriculum adoption process.
• process that's building where the instructional materials are built off of the curriculum framework process
• foods, ultra-processed foods, and offer more minimally processed, more freshly prepared foods, as you
• foods, ultra-processed foods, and offer more minimally processed, more freshly prepared foods, as you
• They were actually funded in the state budget to do formative, impact, and process evaluation of our

Summary: The committee heard a series of budget proposals focused on education finance, with repeated questions about whether the state’s investments are coordinated, targeted to the highest-need students, and likely to produce measurable results. On the first item, the administration proposed $1 million for a study of California’s curriculum framework, standards, and instructional materials process, plus $250,000 for supplemental ELA/ELD guidance. CDE and Finance said the study would examine how other states organize standards, frameworks, and adoptions, while the chair and members questioned why California has gone so long without updating some standards, what the study would actually accomplish, and whether the proposal was too vague to justify the cost. The issue was held open. The committee then took up a proposed $25 million statewide literacy network within the system of support. CCEE and CDE said the network would coordinate multiple existing literacy leads, create a clearinghouse of evidence-based resources, and improve coherence across the state’s many literacy initiatives. Members pressed on how a one-time, five-year allocation could support a long-term system, how the work would reach distressed and rural districts, and whether the proposal would translate into classroom change rather than just another layer of coordination. The issue was also held open. Next, the committee reviewed a $500 million proposal to expand literacy coaches and reading specialists and to create a math coaches program. CDE described the existing literacy coach cohorts as producing positive reports from participating LEAs, while the LAO recommended modifications, especially for the math coach portion, including limiting eligibility to elementary schools, setting minimum grant amounts, directing funds to eligible school sites, and making eligibility automatic rather than application-based. Members focused on whether coaches were actually being placed at the schools with the greatest need and whether the state has a coherent long-term strategy for literacy and math investments. The committee also heard a $40 million proposal for training and implementation of K-2 reading difficulty screeners, which the LAO said was reasonable but could be reduced because $25 million had already been provided for training; CDE said the new funds were needed for full implementation, procurement, and sustainability. Finally, the committee heard a $10 million proposal for a developmentally appropriate TK multilingual learner screener, with CDE explaining why the preschool language-identification process is different from K-12 EL assessment and the chair asking staff to explore whether a single, more consistent approach could be developed. The meeting concluded with a presentation on universal school meals and kitchen infrastructure, including a $31.5 million backfill, an $84.1 million increase for projected meal growth, a COLA adjustment, and $150 million for kitchen upgrades and training to support freshly prepared meals.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Budget Subcommittee Number 5 on Corrections, The Senate Budget Subcommittee Number 5 on Corrections
• This is a budget increase bill.
• This is a budget increase bill.
• Our budget ask.
• The SIBTF budget proposal.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I I'm exe executive director of budget I I'm exe executive director of budget and<00:04:13.200><
• Do we need to be budgeting and saying these roads need to be done through that process, or can you touch
• It's not necessarily a budget.
• It's not necessarily a budget. Uh cycle. It's not necessarily a budget.
• items are in the budget. items are in the budget. >> Right. >> Right.

Keywords: 00:32 Call to Order and Roll Call 02:30 Road Fund Report 17:22 Approval of Minutes 18:07 High Growth Counties Projects 56:00 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee for Transportation met without a quorum at first, then later approved the July 15 minutes by voice vote after quorum was reached. The committee heard an update from the Transportation Cabinet on the road fund for FY 2024-25. Cabinet staff reported road fund revenue came in $38.5 million above the enacted estimate, with motor vehicle usage tax receipts setting an all-time high for the fifth straight year. Motor fuels tax revenue was below estimate and down from the prior year, while overall road fund collections totaled $1.86 billion, essentially flat year over year. Staff said the road fund ended FY25 with a $61.6 million surplus, which under the budget bill must be appropriated to state construction. Members discussed the gas tax formula, with Senator Higdon arguing it no longer works well because revenues fall when fuel prices fall, and the chair noting the committee may need to revisit the formula. The committee then received an update on High Growth County projects in the 2024 highway plan. KYTC said $16 million in HGC authorizations had been made, nine projects already had construction funds authorized or were otherwise underway, 12 more were scheduled to be let by the end of 2025 with estimated construction costs above $250 million, and one additional project was expected to be awarded through alternative delivery. The cabinet said it anticipated authorizing the full $450 million appropriated by the General Assembly. Members praised the effort and emphasized the need to get projects to market before the next budget cycle. Jason Sala of KYTC also explained why transportation projects take time, citing planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, and utility relocation as major steps that can delay delivery. He said these processes are complex and require coordination with property owners, utilities, consultants, contractors, and local governments. Eric Pelfrey then briefed the committee on professional and personal service contracts, saying they are used to expand cabinet capacity for design, inspections, right-of-way appraisal, safety, and related work. He reported that authorizations and payments for these contracts have trended upward over the past decade, and that the number of contracts has also increased. In response to questions, Pelfrey said design-build can speed some projects by overlapping steps, but it does not eliminate right-of-way or utility work when those are required; he said KYTC has been using alternative delivery more often, but project complexity still limits how quickly work can move.

Transcript Highlights:

• Your comment that the timing doesn't match up between the state's budget timeline, the state budget process
• So, given that the review of the plan is in process, the general budget condition of the state, and the
• process.
• Fund in the state budget.
• process.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The proposed budget totals $117.4 billion.
• The budget proposes $221 million.
• process.
• The budget for these agencies is mostly trust-funded, meaning that their budgets are funded by dedicated
• The governor's budget does make some recommendations to the qualifications for the next budget year,

Summary: The committee convened with a quorum, welcomed new member Senator Ralph Massullo, and first took up confirmation of five appointees to water management district and basin board positions. Senator McLean moved favorable confirmation of Ted Everett, Jerome Pate, Michael Romano, Paul Bissfam, John Hall, and Virginia Johns, and the motion passed by roll call. The main agenda item was the Governor’s Florida First budget presentation for the environmental agencies. Kim Kramer and DEP Secretary Alexis Lambert outlined proposed environmental funding of about $5.8 billion, including more than $1.4 billion for water resources, $810 million for Everglades restoration, $408 million for water quality, $202 million for Resilient Florida, $75 million for beach renourishment, $150 million for Florida Forever, $70 million for state park infrastructure, and $221 million for hazardous waste cleanup. They also highlighted proposed funding for FWC operations, manatee care, python removal, oyster reef restoration, forestry and wildfire equipment, and citrus research and disease response. Members asked about Florida Forever funding, state park wastewater and septic needs, a cut to the Florida Wildlife Research Institute, and how beach renourishment is handled after storms. The committee then heard the general government budget presentation. Agencies highlighted included DBPR, Gaming Control, the Lottery, DMS, PERC, DFS, OIR, and Revenue. DBPR discussed funding for license processing, an animal abuse hotline, vehicle replacement, and IT recruitment; Gaming Control requested new law enforcement squads and a licensing/enforcement IT system; the Lottery emphasized marketing, retail engagement, IT, and retention funding; DMS proposed building, fleet, telecommunications, cybersecurity, and local government grant investments; PERC described workload growth after SB 256 and requested staffing, operations, and pay increases; OIR sought more staff for consumer protection and market oversight plus building renovations; DFS highlighted My Safe Florida Home funding, fire marshal and first responder support, financial investigations, and gold and silver legal tender implementation; and Revenue requested operational, IT, and fiscally constrained county funding. Members questioned DBPR about unfunded HOA fraud and condo transparency items, DMS about cybersecurity grants, and DFS about My Safe Florida Home funding levels, abandoned grants, and reduced program uptake. No further action was taken, and the committee adjourned without additional votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a proposal in the Governor's budget for a study of California's curriculum adoption process.
• process.
• process.
• Than the application process.
• They were funded in the state budget to conduct formative, impact, and process evaluations of our California

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But we are here today to hear the budget and trailer bills that constitute our September budget package
• our 2025 budget.
• As a new legislator, I'm equally troubled that our budget process is increasingly having policy in it
• process.
• Engage many of you, and many of you worked hard against it as well, support the budget funding and process

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Legislative Budget Office. Legislative Budget Office.
• c> the management budget budget division in the management budget budget division in the development
• Or it might happen through the annual budget process, or whatever it might be, where they say, "Well,
• Or it might happen through the annual budget process, or whatever it might be, where they say, "Well,
• process is good. process is good.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Caucus Public Commission met with a quorum present, approved the September 3, 2025 minutes, and then heard a presentation from Legislative Budget Office Director Christian Larson on proposed updates to the fiscal note uniform standards and procedures. The main changes clarified that agencies must still complete a fiscal note when a bill or section cannot be implemented because of federal law, with the note explaining the implementation issue and costing only the portions that can be implemented. A second change said technical comments about possible future litigation may be included in the narrative but not in the cost tables. Members discussed how these rules would apply when only part of a bill is unimplementable versus when an entire bill is, and whether requiring a note in those cases is the best use of agency time. The commission also approved a new procedure on funding-source assumptions for expanded programs, including assuming the current funding source unless the bill says otherwise and defaulting to the general fund if no source is identified. The updated standards and procedures were adopted by a 7-0 roll call vote, with Senator Wickland excused. The commission then received a second presentation from Director Larson on a possible analysis of the accuracy of fiscal estimates and budget items after enactment. He described this as a variance analysis comparing fiscal note estimates to actual fiscal impacts, intended to improve future estimates, inform the legislature, and increase accountability. He summarized practices in other states, noting that most variance reviews are ad hoc, while Utah and Tennessee have more formalized legislative reports; he also referenced an LBO pilot review done in 2022 based largely on Tennessee’s model. The presentation outlined possible report formats, including a single annual report, standalone briefs, or topic-specific reviews, and raised implementation questions such as who would select items for review, whether the analysis should be limited to fiscal notes, what statutory authority or data access would be needed, and what resources would be required from both agencies and the LBO. Members did not take action on the second presentation. Representative Anderson and Vice Chair Pratt commented that the proposal is complicated but potentially useful for improving future fiscal notes and transparency, and the chair indicated the discussion was for future consideration rather than an immediate decision.

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, on my this pro process.
• me<00:14:13.600> make<00:14:13.760> sure processes really helped me make sure processes
• And we that take on this process.
• quickly and had look started the process quickly and had look started the process after<00:31:25.039
• Uh you also see a school budgets.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The House Budget Review Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education and Workforce Development met for an information-gathering session and opened by clarifying that the subcommittee would not be voting on budget requests. Because there was no quorum at first, the committee did not take up approval amendments. The first presentation focused on a budget request to incentivize national certification for school social workers and school psychologists. Rep. Vanessa Gracal, along with Amy Oats and Leslie Gilpin, argued for a $500,000 annual appropriation to provide $2,000 salary supplements to nationally certified school social workers and school psychologists working primarily in their certification areas. They said the stipend would help recruit and retain professionals amid shortages, noted that current Kentucky certification numbers are low, and explained the rigorous certification and renewal requirements. In response to questions, they said there is currently no appropriation for this purpose in HB 500 and none they were aware of in HB 6 in 2024. The next topic was school facility funding needs, led by Rep. Bob McCool, Johnson County Superintendent Tom Cochran, Commissioner of Education Robert Fletcher, and other district representatives. They described the “gap funding” issue for school construction projects that had already started before COVID-era inflation sharply increased costs. Johnson County and Harrison County were highlighted as examples of districts that had already committed local funds, passed nickel taxes, and begun construction but now need additional state support to finish projects. Speakers emphasized that many projects were audited and approved, that the state has already funded about half of the gap, and that roughly $130 million more is being sought in HB 500 to complete the remaining work. They stressed that unfinished projects would leave districts with half-built schools and that completing them would bring long-term savings and better facilities for students. The committee then turned to testimony from KASA representatives on the impacts of HB 500 as introduced. The witnesses discussed the importance of school psychology and school social work certification, the benefits of advanced training for student services, and the need to recognize and support highly qualified staff. A member asked whether HB 500 or HB 6 included an appropriation for the certification stipend, and the witnesses answered no. The meeting also included a motion to approve the minutes from the prior meeting once a quorum was present, and the minutes were approved by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to Assembly Budget. Full room here. Welcome to Assembly Budget Sub 4.
• That would be budgeted as $25 million within CNRA's budget, $25 million within WCB's budget, and $75
• Budget assumed roughly $3.77 billion in both the current year and budget year.
• budget year.
• So CARB could have proposed a budget process to us, and we could have had, you know, a healthy discussion

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , and the federal budget process, which in this case is a reconciliation.
• a country and you'll see the numbers, uh, they're stark, uh, the budget reconciliation process, what
• Uh, we Uh, once the, the budget reconciliation, reconciliation process is designed to unlock revenue
• I will acknowledge that this budget reconciliation process is kind of weighted in favor of spending,
• All of that's been at risk as we've been looking at this budget reconciliation process, so the details

Transcript Highlights:

• The 2022 Budget Act agreement established a new funding floor starting in this budget year, 2025-26,
• Now onto the Governor's budget proposals.
• process that occurs, that are built into this proposal?
• It's a very bumpy process.
• I can maybe speak to some of the thought process for the original approvals in the 2020 Budget Act.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing focused on California Community College budget proposals. Chair Alvarez opened by emphasizing the system’s role in access, transfer, workforce training, and serving more than 2 million students, while also noting persistent challenges in enrollment, persistence, transfer, and graduation. Public commenters and system representatives broadly supported COLA, enrollment growth funding, deferred maintenance, student support block grants, and additional flexibility for districts facing uncertainty. The first major panel covered the student-centered funding formula, COLA, and enrollment growth. The Department of Finance said the Governor proposes a 2.43% COLA ($230.4 million) and 0.5% enrollment growth funding ($30.4 million). The LAO said the COLA was reasonable and recommended funding at least the proposed growth amount, citing uneven enrollment recovery and regional differences. The Chancellor’s Office supported both proposals and asked for additional changes, including using the greater of current-year or three-year average for apportionments and lifting the 10% local enrollment cap, arguing these would better fund growing districts. Members questioned how the formula works, whether SCFF is improving outcomes, and how much additional funding would be needed under different growth scenarios. The committee then reviewed categorical program COLAs, Rising Scholars, career education proposals, IT proposals, and student housing. The Governor proposed a 2.43% COLA for selected categorical programs ($31.9 million). For Rising Scholars, the Governor proposed $30 million ongoing and removal of the cap on participating colleges; the LAO urged waiting for outcome data before doubling funding, while the Chancellor’s Office said the program is serving more students and supports equity for justice-impacted students. On career education, the Governor proposed $50 million for credit for prior learning and $50 million for a career passport; the LAO supported more reporting on credit for prior learning but recommended rejecting the career passport as too undefined, while the Chancellor’s Office supported both. On technology, the Governor proposed $162.5 million for a common cloud data platform and $168 million for a common ERP system; the LAO said both were premature or lacked sufficient planning and recommended rejection, while the Chancellor’s Office argued they would improve real-time data, security, and systemwide efficiency. The committee also heard an update on student housing: the administration said the 2024 shift to a lease-revenue bond model remains in progress for 13 approved projects, with 11 still active, and members asked about withdrawn projects and possible use of any returned funds. No votes were taken, and several items were held open for further discussion and May Revision updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is a $6.3 billion budget, and I don't think it is a hard ask to find that within the budget.
• The reason that budget is $6.2 million is because there are a lot of entitled services in that budget
• To let that process go forward.
• This is a fairly significant budget.
• up in the IT budget as well.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee began with roll call and a brief update on remaining work, then took up Senate Bill 2213, the “science of math” bill. Members clarified that the appropriation for the program was not included in the DPI budget and would remain attached to the policy bill for now. The committee adopted the amendment and then gave the bill a do pass recommendation, 21-2. The committee next considered Senate Bills 2036 and 2037, both juvenile justice/Human Services bills involving mental health and criminal responsibility evaluations for minors. Testimony explained that the bills create new processes and require DHS to contract with specialized providers, with appropriations of $500,000 in 2036 and $300,000 in 2037. Members debated whether the funding should come from existing DHS resources or remain as separate appropriations, and whether the programs were one-time or ongoing. The committee adopted amendments on both bills and then recommended both do pass, with 2036 passing 14-6 and 2037 passing 17-4. The committee then heard Senate Bill 2021, the Information Technology Department budget. Representative Bosch outlined major themes in the budget, including migration from PeopleSoft and the mainframe, onboarding/off-boarding automation, double-counting of IT spending, and the transition of education technology from PowerSchool to Infinite Campus. Members also discussed a study amendment related to a statewide enterprise resource planning system, and added language on grant management and compliance management. The committee adopted the amendments and gave the budget a do pass recommendation, 20-0-3. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 2011, the Highway Patrol budget. Representative Pyle explained the House changes, including shifting some one-time costs to the motor carrier electronic permit fund, funding for body armor, breath tests, road course resurfacing, fleet costs, handgun replacement, and carryover authority for federal technology funds. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed the budget 21-0-2. The committee then began Senate Bill 2399, a Human Services bill on Medicaid reimbursement for psychiatric residential treatment facilities, but deferred action after testimony from a facility representative and committee discussion about therapeutic leave days, reimbursement rates, and whether a cap on reimbursable days should be set in statute or rule. The chair said the committee would seek more information from DHS and take the bill up the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a difficult<00:05:04.320> budget<00:05:04.720> to difficult budget to difficult budget
• This budget is a challenge.
• This budget is a challenge.
• This budget is a challenge.
• This budget is a challenge.

Bills: HF2434

Keywords: healthcare, personal care assistance, worker retention, disability services, state funding, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Somebody in the budgeting process does, somebody over at DOE does, but I don't have a clue.
• And when they get through with their budgeting process, they will have adopted a final millage rate that's
• of the budget or the second reading of the budget.
• As part of the truth in millage process, a budget summary So what does this mean?
• As part of the truth in millage process, a budget summary must be published in a newspaper.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for an educational session focused on how Florida funds public schools and how property taxes are assessed and levied. Dr. Jim Zengali of the Department of Revenue explained the FEFP school funding formula, noting that it is built on weighted student counts, a base student allocation, and programmatic add-ons such as transportation, exceptional student education, school safety, and mental health. He said school funding is roughly split between state general revenue and local property taxes through required local effort, with additional discretionary and capital outlay millages contributing to total school funding. He also described the Department of Revenue’s role in certifying property rolls at fair market value and reviewing them for substantial compliance, including the so-called “nuclear option” if a roll is not approved. Members asked about trends in millage rates, county-by-county funding differences, the effect of growth and enrollment changes, and how property appraisals are reviewed. Zengali said aggregate millage for school funding has declined over the last decade while revenues have still increased, and he agreed to provide additional data on county trends, parcel strata, student growth, and enrollment impacts. He also clarified that school funding is equalized so students receive similar resources regardless of county wealth, and that federal funding plays only a small role in the FEFP. Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research then discussed existing homestead benefits. She said about half of Florida’s parcels are homestead properties, most fall in the $250,000 to $500,000 value range, and many seniors without mortgages pay property taxes in lump sums rather than through escrow. Baker explained that Florida’s homestead tax burden is middle-of-the-pack nationally and that the main benefits are Save Our Homes and portability on the differential side, plus the $25,000 homestead exemption and related exemptions on the exemption side. She said these benefits reduce taxable value substantially, with homestead properties receiving a large share of the reductions, and noted that the committee requested follow-up data on exemption usage, portability timing, senior exemptions, and county-level patterns. The final presentation, by Lizette Kelly of the Department of Revenue, covered millage rates and the TRIM process. She reviewed the history of truth-in-millage notices, required taxpayer mailings, public hearing notices, and later changes that tied local millage resets to rollback and majority-vote rates. Kelly explained the difference between proposed and adopted millage, the rollback rate, and the majority-vote rate, and described how taxing authorities include counties, cities, special districts, and MSTUs. She also outlined how county taxable value is calculated from just value through assessment differentials and exemptions, and how certain exemptions, such as the additional senior exemption, apply only to the taxing authority that adopted them. No votes were taken during the meeting, but members requested several follow-up data reports for later discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• situation overall, the budget overall, and the details of any aspects of the budget are things we're
• A large part of that process is the environmental process.
• our budget as we move forward.
• The budget is proposing a $1.4 billion budget.
• And we will continue to work on this throughout the budget process and provide an updated picture at

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• timeline, the state budget process, and the reorganization.
• So, given that the review of the plan is in process, the general budget condition of the state, and the
• Because we can't do this in the span of a budget process.
• But I do want to add this is the budget process exactly how it should work, which is sometimes we go
• And so that's all of kind of this budget deliberation process to be able to discuss those and figure

Summary: The subcommittee first heard an informational presentation on the May Revision’s proposed reorganization of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into separate housing-focused and consumer/business-focused entities. Administration officials said the split would improve oversight, streamline decision-making, and create a dedicated California Housing and Homelessness Agency with a new housing development and finance committee. The Department of Finance said funding was needed in 2025-26 to begin implementation, while the LAO recommended rejecting the proposal without prejudice because the Little Hoover Commission review was still pending and the plan would require ongoing General Fund costs. Members raised concerns about the timing, the lack of alignment with the budget process, and whether the reorganization would improve accountability for homelessness spending; several public witnesses supported the concept but stressed it could not substitute for new housing and homelessness dollars. The committee then took up the Department of Veterans Affairs. CalVet requested funding for phase three of its electronic health care record project and a trailer bill to preserve authority for federal background checks, but the May Revision withdrew requests for deferred maintenance and additional administrative support. The LAO noted deferred maintenance can prevent larger future costs, and the chair criticized the withdrawal of less than $1 million for veterans’ homes as short-sighted given existing repair needs. No vote was taken. Next, the Department of Housing and Community Development presented its budget. HCD said the May Revision provides no new affordable housing or homelessness funding, but does retain existing rounds of funding and proposes a $31.7 million reversion from undersubscribed housing programs. Members from both parties expressed concern about zeroing out ongoing housing and homelessness investments, especially for LIHTC, the Multifamily Housing Program, and HAP. HCD also defended its homelessness accountability and compliance work, saying the unit includes about 30 program staff and six attorneys, with three additional attorneys requested mainly to handle public records and litigation workload. Public commenters largely opposed the lack of new funding and urged continued support for housing and homelessness programs, while some supported the reorganization and accountability efforts. Finally, the committee heard Go-Biz proposals. The administration requested authority to increase funding for a federal trade program match if needed, plus reappropriations for administrative funds tied to the Containerized Ports Interoperability Grant Program, zero-emission vehicle operations, and the Women’s Business Center Enhancement Program. It also proposed withdrawing the Cal Competes grant request and reverting remaining funds from the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund. The LAO said Cal Competes is generally effective but could be cut as a budget solution, while warning that the performing arts fund was close to awards and should be considered carefully. Members objected to pulling back committed funds for performing arts organizations and questioned why the state would withdraw support after applications had already been submitted.