Transcript Highlights:

• We have 21 budget amendments on today's agenda.
• The department has one budget amendment requesting additional budget authority for $14,751,000.
• Of those cases, there were... it's in the budget amendment.
• There were it's in the budget amendment. There were around It's in the budget amendment.
• So why are we just getting this budget amendment now in 2026? Mr.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:39.720><c> this</c> $142,000 to Clay County's budget this $142,000 to Clay County's budget
• </c><00:03:45.959><c> is</c> that Klay County's budget is that Klay County's budget is hurting<00:03:
• </c> however the governor's current budget however the governor's current budget proposal<00:14:52.240
• uh are you optimistic that a budget can uh are you optimistic that a budget can pass<00:28:58.360><c>
• </c> continue to work and uh to get a budget continue to work and uh to get a budget done<00:29:23.039

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , and the budget is subject to change every budget cycle and more frequently as needed.
• There's a budget. ...report that there was a budget.
• There's a budget. ...report that there was a budget.
• half the state budget.
• budget, right, and a budget request for next year.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The committee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on OSPI’s school apportionment system, which distributes K-12 funding to districts. Auditors said the system and its underlying 2008-era infrastructure are outdated, unstable, inefficient, and at high risk of errors or failure. They also found weak controls over data input, documentation, oversight, and monitoring, with heavy reliance on a small number of staff and vendor knowledge. In limited testing of three districts, the system calculated 2023–24 funding correctly, but auditors identified small discrepancies between state budget inputs and underlying statutory language and said broader system risks remain unresolved. JLARC members asked about the scope of the district testing, whether smaller districts face greater risk, the meaning of the funding discrepancies, and whether the system could support a future change to a simpler per-student funding formula. Auditors said the discrepancies were small but could compound into millions statewide, and that the audit did not evaluate broader policy questions or alternative system owners. They recommended OSPI modernize or replace the system and address current control weaknesses while the new platform is developed. OSPI officials largely agreed that the current platform needs replacement and said a feasibility study completed in 2024 found the system at catastrophic risk of failure. They clarified that the Legislature had approved up to $16 million in the state IT pool for the project, but that funding is released through gated oversight and not all of it had yet been appropriated for the current biennium. OSPI disputed the auditor’s characterization of some rounding and budget-law issues, saying the calculations were consistent with agency rules and legislative inputs, and explained that some manual workarounds are used to handle newer statutory requirements. One member of the public testified in support of modernizing the system and strengthening controls. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• “To start with, Governor Ferguson’s proposal for the transportation budget is a $16.8 billion budget
• We understand this is another tough budget year, and as you write the budget for the supplemental, we
• you're thinking about, whether it's the transportation budget, the capital budget, or the general fund
• did not specify a budget.
• We asked that it be included in the budget proposal without specifically calling out a budget.

Summary: The Transportation Committee heard a presentation from WSDOT Secretary Julie Meredith on the agency’s mission, 2025 accomplishments, and 2026 priorities. Meredith emphasized preservation, safety, emergency response, ferry reliability, culvert replacement, and major projects such as the I-5 Ship Canal Bridge work, North Spokane Corridor, Confluence Parkway, and the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program. She highlighted the state’s aging transportation assets, recent storm and flood damage, bridge strikes, and the need for additional preservation funding, including the governor’s proposed $1 billion investment in Washington State Ferries and continued work on the World Cup and future regional growth planning. Members asked about ferry service disruptions, rising IBR costs, staffing needs, aviation assets, and bridge-strike certainty tied to the Coast Guard’s upcoming decision on bridge clearance requirements. The committee then received a briefing on HB 2306, the governor’s supplemental transportation budget, which totals $16.7 billion and increases the enacted budget by about $1.2 billion, with most of the increase directed to WSDOT capital spending. OFM staff said the proposal is driven by preservation, maintenance, and ferry needs, and relies on about $3.1 billion in bonding against transportation revenues, while staying below the Treasurer’s coverage ratio. The proposal includes $2 billion for preservation, $164 million for paving this summer, $756 million for paving over 10 years, $250 million for maintenance, $150 million for preserving existing ferries, $15 million for Lower Columbia River dredging, and smaller investments for WSP communications, DOL access, and local road grants. Committee members asked about debt service, remaining bonding capacity, and the impact of office closures and ferry service reductions. Public testimony was largely supportive of the governor’s budget, especially its preservation and ferry investments. Local officials and associations backed ferry funding, local road grants, pavement and bridge preservation, and the Columbia River dredging match. Several speakers urged more support for cities and counties, while rail and transit advocates asked for more rail capital funding and less highway expansion. One ferry advocate criticized the cost of hybrid-electric vessel maintenance compared with diesel, and another witness warned against a pay-per-mile tax. The hearing ended without a vote, and the chair announced a short caucus before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• CDCR's budget was 9% of the state budget 10 years ago; it's 5.6% now. So we continue to go down.
• Well, just in general, the budget, the 2024 budget act assumed $190 million in efficiency savings.
• I will point out again, too, that our share of the budget continues to go down, and our budget on the
• we were 9% of the budget 10 years ago, we're 5.6 now, our percentage of the budget is, in fact, going
• So what you have happen is that there's dollars in the budget that are budgeted for positions, but in

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation heard an overview from the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) on its budget change proposal and grant administration. BSCC requested authority for 11 additional permanent positions to handle a workload that has nearly tripled over five to seven years, with more than 600 grant agreements and about $1.5 billion in grant funds in the field. The board also reported on its new In-Custody Death Review Division, which has collected data since July 2024 and received 136 jail death reports; staff said the division is still building out reviews and has identified overdose, natural causes, and suicide by hanging as the leading manners of death. Members raised concerns about family notification practices, oversight of local grants, and the impact of taking more administrative funds from local assistance, while the LAO and Department of Finance did not oppose the position request but urged correction of the administration’s Proposition 47 savings methodology before May Revision. The committee then reviewed CDCR’s overall budget and operations. Secretary Jeffrey Macomber described a relatively steady prison and parole population, ongoing structural budget pressures from retirement payouts, workers’ compensation, medical transport, violence, and aging facilities lacking air conditioning and ADA features. He emphasized rehabilitation, recidivism reduction, college programming, and the department’s 20-year infrastructure planning effort, while also defending the closure of the California Rehabilitation Center and warning that additional closures can increase overcrowding, double-celling, and waitlists for programming. Senators pressed CDCR on fiscal discipline, vacancy savings, staffing shortages in medical and mental health classifications, the use of tablets for incarcerated people, and community impacts from prison closures, including the Norco site. A separate item focused on CDCR’s request for $91 million ongoing for lump-sum leave payouts to separating correctional officers and nurses. CDCR said these costs had historically been covered by vacancy savings, but lower vacancy levels and facility closures have reduced that funding source. The LAO supported the funding only on a limited-term basis with reporting, arguing the need may change as the system reaches a new normal, and also urged the Legislature to scrutinize the broader structural shortfall and the Boston Consulting Group efficiency contract. Finance supported ongoing funding, saying the costs are recurring and vacancy savings are less reliable. The committee also discussed CDCR’s fall 2025 population projections, which forecast a 6.5% decline in the institution population and a 10.4% decline in parole over five years, while updating Proposition 36 assumptions based on actual admissions data. CDCR and Finance said the California Rehabilitation Center closure would generate savings and that no additional prison closure had been formally proposed, though the LAO argued the state could close another prison and recommended not funding certain Soledad projects unless another closure is identified.

Transcript Highlights:

• There were solutions included in that budget.
• Please, I oppose and reject that budget cut.
• I oppose the budget cuts, and I urge you to do the same.
• in accordance with the 2023 Budget Act.
• proposal that continues to be in the budget.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Governor's budget assumes a total of...
• There are some budget requests in the current budget. requests in the current budget.
• We know it's a challenging budget year, challenging budget times, and there are a lot of unknowns out
• Consistent with last year's budget agreement, the 25-26 budget plan reduces funding for Middle Class
• The governor's budget Maintain statewide efficiency reductions of 7.95% included in the 2024 Budget Act

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Freedom schools are protected in this budget. All federal tax conformity is in this budget.
• We’re not talking about Florida’s budget or the federal government’s budget right now.
• We're not talking about Florida's budget or the federal government's budget right now.
• This budget is absolutely not perfect. This is a budget. This budget is absolutely not perfect.
• am I voting for this budget?

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But we are here today to hear the budget and trailer bills that constitute our September budget package
• 2025 budget.
• Today I will be presenting on a Budget Bill Jr., which amends the 2025 Budget Act and associated budget
• Today I will be presenting on a Budget Bill Jr., which amends the 2025 Budget Act and associated budget
• Obviously, point-in-time projections are what we have for the budget to inform the budget.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the September budget package, which included SB 105 and a series of trailer bills covering health, human services, education, resources, child care, transportation, labor, public safety, housing, revenue, background checks, collective bargaining, and a special election. The Department of Finance described the package as largely technical and clarifying, but also responsive to state and federal changes, especially H.R. 1. Key items included roughly $3.3 billion in Proposition 4 climate and environmental spending, $540 million in discretionary greenhouse gas reduction funds, and major responses to H.R. 1 such as CalFresh error-rate mitigation, food bank support, and Medicaid-related changes. Other notable provisions included vaccine policy flexibility, an Abortion Access Fund, a gender-affirming care program, community college basic-needs and aid changes, CEQA and coastal permit exemptions tied to the 2028 Olympics, invasive mussel prevention funding, a civic media program, labor and pension-related provisions, and special election administration changes. Members raised questions and concerns about several parts of the package. There was support for climate, water, transit, offshore wind, food security, and health investments, but also significant criticism of the lack of cleanup language for SB 131 and its advanced manufacturing exemptions, with multiple members saying promised fixes had not materialized and expressing concerns about tribal consultation, labor standards, and environmental protections. Members also questioned the scale and timing of some Proposition 4 allocations, including fairground upgrades, regional conveyance, and a UC Davis alternative protein research center. The Department of Finance said some programs would roll out over time and that certain funding levels reflected current implementation capacity. The hearing also featured discussion of Bay Area transit financing, with Finance saying SB 105 directs the department and CalSTA to examine loan or other financing options rather than immediately providing loans. Members and public commenters also discussed the state’s response to H.R. 1, with advocates supporting food bank, health care, and immunization provisions while warning of ongoing harm to immigrants, foster youth, and other vulnerable groups. Public testimony broadly supported the health, food, water, offshore wind, and golden mussel provisions, while many speakers echoed legislative concerns about SB 131 and urged cleanup action in the next session. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only, though the chair noted votes on the bills were expected later that night or the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> budget since 2022. budget since 2022.
• </c> budget for judiciary. budget for judiciary.
• </c> budget $1.5 million short? budget $1.5 million short?
• Speaker. write a budget. There's a lot of stuff write a budget.
• We've submitted 92 budget requests. We've submitted 92 budget requests.

Keywords: Several minutes after the convene vote and before the introduction failed to properly steam. This version was pulled from a local back up., 958, all

Summary: The House convened with 97 members present, declared a quorum, approved excusing absent members, and suspended the rules to allow co-sponsorships and vote modifications. The journal for February 25, 2026 was approved. The clerk also reported that the Senate had passed Senate Bills 98 and 122 and requested concurrence. The House then received second-reading reports on a range of bills, including measures on prison educational programs, respiratory care, dietitians, wildlife depredation, temporary structures, military families, civil rights, local boards of education, light pollution, controlled-substance prescribing licenses, youth health services, class sizes for exceptional children, the athletic trainer compact, limited commercial driver’s licenses, and Senate Bill 145 relating to the Department of Agriculture and Alcohol Beverage Control. Committee reports moved several bills forward, including the main budget bills House Bill 500 and House Bill 504, along with measures on workforce investment, data centers, domestic violence, guardians ad litem, domestic relations, health delivery and “food is medicine” initiatives, state personnel, open records, and fish and wildlife resources. House Bill 500 and House Bill 504 were taken from the Rules Committee and placed on the orders of the day. House Bill 500, the executive branch budget bill, was then taken up for third reading and explanation. Members presented extensive floor explanations of House Bill 500 and House Committee Substitute 1, describing it as a “good first draft” of the executive budget. Supporters said the proposal emphasizes restrained spending growth, base reductions with exemptions for key areas, employee salary increments, and deposits to the Budget Reserve Trust Fund for future one-time investments. They highlighted funding for K-12 education, postsecondary aid and workforce training, Medicaid and behavioral health, public health infrastructure, pensions, veterans, public safety, economic development, tourism, and state technology and facility maintenance. The budget substitute was adopted by voice vote, and the discussion continued with detailed descriptions of the bill’s provisions; no final passage vote was shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please, I oppose and reject that budget cut.
• On behalf of CRDP, I oppose the 15.8 budget cut proposal. Thank you. the 15.8 budget cut proposal.
• , consistent with the 2023 Budget Act.
• , consistent with the 2023 Budget Act.
• We represent 4,300 total budgeted positions.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held an informational hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, focusing first on the Commission on Behavioral Health, then EMSA, and then the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). The Department of Finance said the state faces a third consecutive deficit and that the May Revision includes difficult trade-offs, including proposed eliminations or reversions of some behavioral health and public health funds. The LAO echoed concern about the structural deficit and said it was still awaiting some budget details before offering a full analysis. For the Commission on Behavioral Health, Finance proposed eliminating $20 million in Mental Health Wellness Act funds, arguing the money would help offset General Fund costs and noting future Proposition 1 innovation funding. The commission strongly opposed the cut, saying it would eliminate or delay launch-ready grants for early childhood supports, full-service partnerships, and peer respite, and would eventually end ongoing grant programming. Several advocates and commissioners testified that the funds support underserved communities and that Proposition 1 is not a substitute for the existing programs. The chair asked Finance to look for alternatives, but no vote was taken. EMSA presented mostly technical budget adjustments: increased authority for the California Poison Control System, a correction to EMSIS funding, and a reappropriation for enterprise services and data management. CDPH then reviewed a broader set of May Revision proposals, including reversions from the California Reducing Disparities Project, workforce development, STD prevention, hepatitis C prevention, hospice, and extreme heat funding, as well as a new generative AI pilot for health facility survey reporting. Members raised concerns about cuts to CRDP and gender health equity programs, especially because many grants are mid-contract and serve underserved communities; CDPH said the reversions were part of solving the deficit and that CRDP had been successful, while also clarifying that abortion.ca.gov would not be eliminated. Public comment was overwhelmingly opposed to the CRDP and related cuts, with many speakers describing the programs as life-saving and cost-effective. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• What does that mean for their capital budget?
• for the capital budget.
• what it means for the capital budget.
• The most important of which is hardening the budget, preparing a budget... ...emphasizing, the most important
• of which is hardening the budget: preparing a budget that is fully capable of flexing as fiscal reality

Keywords: 1212, all

Transcript Highlights:

• How many of those are budgeted or not budgeted?" "Those 12 are budgeted.
• How many of those are budgeted or not budgeted? Those 12 are budgeted.
• Is contained within this budget. So we do have adequacy in this budget.
• But we're budgeted.
• And we budget positions; we're budgeting the positions we're allocated.

Summary: The committee heard budget presentations and took executive recommendations on several Department of Human Services divisions, including Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health Services; Children and Family Services; County Operations; Developmental Disability Services; and Medical Services, with most divisions showing little or no significant change in total appropriations. Staff and agency witnesses repeatedly explained that many large appropriations are maintained for flexibility, federal matching requirements, or contingency needs, even when actual spending is much lower than the authorized amount. Members also raised concerns about staffing vacancies, long-vacant budgeted positions, and the use of excess appropriation authority across DHS. In Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health, members questioned federal funding levels for mental health and substance abuse grants, the status of senior centers and Meals on Wheels, the Medicaid tobacco settlement program, community alcohol safety grants, and the veterans mental health grant. Agency officials said federal block grants are largely committed, that senior center funding had been delayed by shutdown timing but was now back on track, that the tobacco settlement program had been moved internally within DHS, and that the veterans mental health appropriation remains unfunded. Senators also criticized the adequacy of support for seniors and asked for more detail on how transportation, meal services, and local contributions are funded. In Children and Family Services, members asked about rising appropriation levels, foster care and adoption subsidies, professional fees, the number of children in foster care, and the Children’s Trust Fund. DHS said increases reflect added flexibility for residential treatment, adoption subsidies, and prevention services, while the foster care population has remained fairly steady at about 3,400 children. The Children’s Trust Fund was described as supporting primary prevention programs such as Baby and Me and community schools, and members asked whether it could be administratively combined with other efforts. Questions also covered TANF subgrants, with DHS explaining that it had reduced outside subgrants after discovering over-obligation and was rebuilding reserves. In County Operations, members focused on the summer EBT program, SNAP employment and training, the farmer’s market program, and the state’s TANF reserve position. DHS said summer EBT is still being funded through temporary appropriations because it is a newer program, SNAP employment and training is largely federally funded and may expand under a pending policy change, and TANF reserves were drawn down after prior over-obligation but are now being stabilized. In Developmental Disability Services, members asked about vacancies, human development center staffing, facility construction funds, and the Booneville work program, and DHS said the program has reopened and staffing recruitment continues. In Medical Services, members asked about FMAP, the Our Kids B CHIP program, school-based Medicaid reimbursements, nursing home distress funds, and several large appropriation lines that far exceed actual spending; DHS said these are maintained for claims payment, nursing home receivership contingencies, and other flexibility needs. Each division reviewed was adopted by executive recommendation after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> budget since 2022. budget since 2022.
• </c> budget for judiciary. budget for judiciary.
• <c> review</c> budget the budget subcommittee review budget the budget subcommittee review process<00
• </c> budget $1.5 million short? budget $1.5 million short?
• </c> budget reserve trust fund. budget reserve trust fund.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The meeting opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved into committee and floor reports. Several measures received favorable committee reports and were ordered to first reading and placed on the calendar, including Current Resolution 9, Senate Joint Resolution 23, House Bill 145, House Bill 567, and House Bill 506 with House Committee Substitute 1. The chamber also noted that House Bills 500 and 504 had already received two readings and were sent to the Rules Committee before House Bill 500 was brought up for final consideration. Most of the discussion focused on House Bill 500, the executive branch budget bill. Members described it as a “good first draft” and emphasized a budget process they said was more transparent than in prior years. The bill was presented as a restrained two-year operating budget with spending growth kept at a little under 2% annually, while setting aside about 2% of projected revenues, or roughly $614 million, in the Budget Reserve Trust Fund for future needs. The budget also used base reductions in some areas while exempting others such as Medicaid benefits, SEEK, corrections, behavioral health, and veterans programs. Subcommittee chairs then outlined major spending areas. Education provisions included a 2% annual increase in base SEEK funding, transportation funding held flat, equalization for recallable nickel funding, continued retirement contributions, and major support for postsecondary access, dual credit, asset preservation, and workforce training. Health and family services provisions held Medicaid steady while adding waiver slots, behavioral health and substance use support, public health investments, and funding for rural health and laboratory capacity. Other sections covered personnel and pensions, veterans services, infrastructure, public safety, economic development, tourism, and environmental projects. The only recorded action on the floor was adoption of House Committee Substitute 1 to House Bill 500, followed by a motion for final passage of the bill as amended. The transcript ends as discussion on final passage begins, before any final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, Representative Dow, is that in their recurring budget and their nonrecurring budget? Mr.
• their operating budget by the 5%.
• budget cuts. ...of austerity or budget cuts, which hopefully we won't be in again.
• And then I saw the budget, and it was flat. Like, how can the budget be flat?
• And then I saw the budget. And it was flat. Like, how can the budget be flat?

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ' first budget, his last budget of his tenure as well.
• state budget.
• state budget. transportation and economic development silo with 15% of the state budget.
• So the budget... population at $12 million.
• So the budget that you see here of $61.8 million is our recommended budget that includes maintaining

Bills: S7010

Keywords: Roth contributions, deferred compensation, retirement savings, Florida Statutes, tax benefits

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations met to take up SB 7010 by Senator Mayfield, which would authorize Roth post-tax contribution options in state and local deferred compensation plans. The bill was briefly explained, received one appearance in support, had no debate, and was reported favorably by roll call vote. The committee then heard a lengthy presentation from the Governor’s Office of Policy and Budget on the governor’s recommended $117.4 billion “Floridians’ First Budget.” The presentation highlighted major spending areas including education, health care, public safety, transportation, environmental restoration, and economic development. Key proposals included increased FEFP funding for K-12 schools, teacher salary funding, higher education support, Everglades and water quality funding, emergency preparedness reserves, corrections staffing and pay increases, law enforcement recruitment bonuses, cybersecurity, and affordable housing and infrastructure investments. Members asked extensive questions about property tax reserve planning, litigation funding, emergency response fund balances and expenditures, the use of federal reimbursement for the Everglades detention facilities, the animal abuse hotline, Hope Florida, corrections staffing, and the proposed reduction in ADAP eligibility for HIV/AIDS medication assistance. A member of the public also testified at length about concerns that the ADAP changes would harm access to life-saving medications and alleged improper shifting of program funds. Committee members and the presenter acknowledged follow-up questions on several items, but no additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond the favorable report on SB 7010 and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the joint budget hearing on Governor Healey's proposed FY27 budget.
• state budgets work.
• off-budget items as well.
• The HHS budget already represents 17% of our total budget.
• She put it in her budget.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The joint budget hearing opened the FY27 budget process with remarks from the Senate and House Ways and Means chairs, who described the fiscal outlook as challenging because of slow revenue growth, rising health care and other costs, and uncertainty from federal policy changes. Governor Healey and Secretary of Administration and Finance Matthew Gorzkowicz then presented House 2, a $62.8 billion budget that they said grows by about 1% and does not raise taxes or fees. They emphasized affordability, fiscal discipline, protection of core services, and continued investment in education, transportation, housing, child care, health care, and public safety. The administration also discussed a separate bill to delay and phase in certain federal tax-code changes from the so-called OB3 law, especially research and experimental expense provisions, to reduce immediate budget impacts and preserve competitiveness. A major portion of the hearing focused on education and municipal aid. The administration said House 2 provides about $7.6 billion for Chapter 70 aid, fully funds the final year of the Student Opportunity Act, increases special education circuit breaker funding, and raises rural school aid. Senators and representatives from both parties raised concerns that Chapter 70 and other aid formulas are not equitable for small, rural, and low-wealth communities and are not keeping pace with inflation, and several called for broader review of the formula and related funding streams. The governor and secretary said they are open to further discussion, pointed to additional support through rural aid, special education, transportation reimbursements, and minimum aid, and said total Student Opportunity Act investment would reach about $2.1 billion over the life of the law. Transportation, housing, and fair share spending were also central topics. The administration said fair share revenues are being used holistically, with education-heavy spending in the operating budget and transportation-heavy spending in the supplemental budget, and estimated the overall split to date at roughly 57% education and 43% transportation. They highlighted MBTA stabilization, regional transit authority support, microtransit, fare-free regional transit, and bridge and commuter rail investments, while noting the MBTA remains a major fiscal concern. On housing, the governor stressed production, permitting reform, ADUs, down-payment assistance, and support for public housing authorities, while lawmakers pressed for more funding for local housing authorities and for ways to address out-migration, energy costs, and affordability. The governor also said the administration will not withhold fire safety grants from communities over MBTA Communities Act noncompliance and will handle such issues case by case. No votes were taken at the hearing; it was an informational presentation and question-and-answer session.

Transcript Highlights:

• the department's total budget.
• The department is budgeted to spend about $18.5 million of their budget in the other charges category
• Also, within budget parameters, are you budgeted, and I looked and I didn't find it, are you all budgeted
• Other charges are budgeted to expend 44.8 million. They are budgeted to expend $44.8 million.
• operating budget.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm director of the Minnesota Budget Project.
• project the Minnesota Minnesota budget project the Minnesota budget<00:09:24.519><c> project</c><00:
• </c> that pre- determines tax or budget that pre- determines tax or budget choices<00:10:55.360><c> limits
• Motion prevails. out and we grew our budget by 40% with out and we grew our budget by 40% with the<00
• </c><00:14:48.600><c> um</c> motans to have their budgets um motans to have their budgets um individually

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 4, first adopting the H004A1 amendment without objection. The author described the bill as a constitutional amendment intended to create a tax relief account funded from projected budget surpluses, defined as revenues exceeding 105% of projected expenditures based on the November forecast. Supporters framed the proposal as a way to return excess taxpayer money to families, homeowners, and seniors rather than allowing the state to retain or redirect it. Testimony in support came from Ranna Lee of Americans for Prosperity, who praised the bill’s clarity and argued that taxpayers are overburdened and should receive surplus funds back; she also suggested broader tax and budget reforms, including rate reductions and tighter spending limits. Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project testified in opposition, saying the legislature already has authority to use surpluses for rebates or tax cuts and warning that constitutionalizing tax policy would reduce flexibility, weaken accountability, and make it harder to respond to changing conditions, emergencies, or recessions. Members then briefly commented, with Republicans expressing support for returning money to taxpayers and citing cost-of-living pressures and fixed incomes. The committee did not hear a formal department position. At the end of the hearing, Representative Johnson renewed the motion that House File 4, as amended, be recommended to pass and sent to the Ways and Means Committee; the motion prevailed on a voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, in this budget, there were 10 positions that were budgeted as vacant.
• So, in this budget, there were 10 positions that were budgeted as vacant.
• You're saying that's going to the PUC in the next budget? Yes, that's under the PUC's budget.
• You're saying that's going to the PUC in the next budget? Yes, that's under the PUC's budget.
• c> is</c> budget the recommended budget is budget the recommended budget is approved<04:20:59.080><c>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard the Banking Department’s fiscal year 2026-2027 budget presentation from Commissioner Amelia Galeri. She described the department as a self-funded consumer protection regulator overseeing two main areas: the Banking Trust Division, which supervises state-chartered banks, credit unions, and trust companies, and the Consumer Credit Division, which oversees more than 7,000 licensees including mortgage and money transmitter businesses. She said the department’s budget is about 86% salaries and benefits, with 53 positions all filled, and explained that the agency funds itself through fees, fines, and end-of-year assessments on regulated entities. Galeri said the department is facing workload growth from several directions: continued growth in the trust industry, increased fintech supervision, and a new requirement to regularly examine auto dealers that take finance applications, which adds about 300 exams over two fiscal years. She said the department was directed to flat-fund its budget based on 2025 levels but was allowed to increase travel and training. To stay within that limit, she said the department reduced office space, went paperless, converted administrative and licensing positions into examiner positions, and expects to defund an embedded DOJ database administrator position once a new SharePoint system is fully implemented. Members asked about how the department’s revenue and assessments work, including whether fees were increasing and how much existing banks would pay. Galeri said fees are not being raised, most banks pay little or no fines, and assessments are based largely on asset size, with trust companies paying the bulk. She also explained that fines are set by statute, generally capped at $2,500 per violation for consumer credit entities, and said she would not recommend increasing that cap. The committee then voted to accept the Banking Department’s budget proposal as presented in HQ1, with a motion and second and no discussion. The transcript then moved to the Department of Energy budget. Commissioner Jared Chakin and Chief of Operations Lenny Radio discussed federal program funding, including LIHEAP fuel assistance and weatherization. They said the apparent drop in fuel assistance funding from FY 2024 actuals to the budgeted amount is due to the loss of ARPA and CARES Act supplemental funds, while weatherization remains a federally constrained program with a waiting list and limited flexibility. Members also asked about a proposed transfer from the renewable energy fund; staff said the transfer would still allow the department to carry out its statutory duties for the year, though the committee deferred deeper discussion until House Bill 2.