Transcript Highlights:

• addition information regarding programs addition information regarding programs um<00:09:03.440>
• Housing Development Program.
• Housing Development Program.
• , and the Bridges Program.
• , and the Bridges Program.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Housing Finance and Policy Committee met for an informational session with no bills taken up and no votes or formal actions. Members and staff introduced themselves, and Chair Speno said the committee would focus on understanding housing policy and barriers to building more homes, noting Minnesota’s housing shortage and the need to support both single-family and multifamily construction. House Research analyst Mary Davis and House Fiscal analyst Katrina Heimark gave an overview of the committee’s jurisdiction and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency’s programs and funding streams. Davis outlined areas the committee may hear about, including real estate law, landlord-tenant law, manufactured home parks, housing cooperatives, zoning, property taxes, and MHFA programs. Heimark described MHFA’s five main budget areas—development and redevelopment, housing stability, homeownership assistance, preservation, and resident/organization support—and reviewed recent appropriations, emphasizing that much of the large 2024–25 funding was one-time money and that ongoing base funding is lower in 2026–27. Members asked several questions about how prior appropriations were spent, whether unused funds return to the general fund, and whether funds can be repurposed. Heimark said transferred funds generally are not returned to the general fund if unspent, but are expected to be used for the purposes outlined in the appropriation; she also said she had requested more detailed expenditure information from the agency and would follow up. Questions also focused on who benefits from programs such as rental housing rehabilitation and the affordable rental investment fund, with the testifiers explaining that most MHFA programs are targeted to low- and moderate-income households and that income eligibility varies by program. The committee also discussed the new metro-area sales tax revenue dedicated to housing, with members requesting more detail on reporting, oversight, and allowable uses.

Transcript Highlights:

• or statewide food programs and schools like the New Mexico Grown Program, the Approved Supplier Program
• senior programs.
• The food bank program was basically a federal grant program.
• Then we put in programs like the CRP, the Conservation Reserve Program.
• Program, our ecological monitoring program, and our conservation science program.

Transcript Highlights:

• be new programs, burgeoning programs.
• But also they have another program dealing with welding, which is a great need program.
• program.
• Program.
• and programs like open door, the apprenticeship programs and they keep going.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in these programs.
• The Paratransit Special Needs Program is primarily an access program.
• Next program is what we call ZAP, Zero Emissions Access Program.
• Next program is what we call ZAP, Zero Emissions Access Program.
• program.

Summary: The House Transportation Committee held a work session focused on Climate Commitment Act transportation spending and electrification programs. Staff first reviewed overall CCA transportation allocations, saying about $2.2 billion has been allocated over three biennia, with major categories including public transportation, active transportation, ferry electrification, zero-emission vehicle programs, rail/ports, and planning. Members asked for additional breakdowns comparing CCA dollars with total program costs across categories. The Department of Ecology presented on the zero-emission school bus grant program. Ecology said the program was codified in 2024 and supports the transition from diesel to electric school buses, including buses, charging infrastructure, and training. For 2025-27, Ecology received $38.3 million in CCA funding; $21.4 million is already obligated or spent, replacing 91 diesel buses in 28 districts, with the rest to be awarded by the end of the biennium. Members asked about cost parity, exemptions for rural and extracurricular routes, health data, and whether the funding covers chargers as well as buses. Ecology said OSPI is developing the parity formula and exemptions are available when electric buses cannot meet district needs. The Department of Commerce described its clean transportation role, including EV rebates, tribal charging and electric boat projects, and the EV Coordinating Council. Commerce said its rebate program was designed to lower monthly costs and prioritize low-income households, with 89% of recipients saying the rebate was essential to their purchase. It also reported strong demand for charging grants, progress on tribal projects, and concerns about utility interconnection timelines, vandalism, and range anxiety. The Department of Enterprise Services reported on state agency EVSE projects, saying it has completed 82 sites with 567 Level 2 ports and 46 DC fast chargers, and that current projects will add 152 more Level 2 ports; members asked about replacing aging chargers and the state’s EV fleet purchasing mix. WSDOT closed with updates on charging, transit, and port electrification. It said its corridor charging program has awarded 23 sites this biennium, with 13 in overburdened communities and five tribal sites, and that the Washington Zero Emission Incentive Program opened with $112 million for vouchers for zero-emission commercial vehicles and equipment. WSDOT also described transit grants, including bus and bus facility funding, commute trip reduction, paratransit, tribal transit, and zero-emissions access car-share projects. The rail freight and ports division reported $89.8 million for port electrification projects, including shore power and drayage trucks, but noted only about 10% has been spent so far because projects are still in design and permitting. Members raised concerns about funding gaps, supply-chain delays, utility capacity, and whether the programs are sufficient to meet broader electrification needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• tax credit program.
• One other program there is, also with the same agency, is the WIN Program, Workforce Integration Program
• , the ROC Program.
• The other program here is a partner's program.
• Programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Save program.
• are running the program.
• But the PAs run the program.
• programs.
• power plant program.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on the value of Mass Save, with opening remarks emphasizing that despite past criticisms the program has delivered major energy, cost, climate, and equity benefits. The chair cited large avoided system costs, strong benefit-cost ratios, and recent legislative changes that set emissions goals, restricted fossil-fuel equipment incentives, and increased focus on low- and moderate-income households. Department of Energy Resources Commissioner Elizabeth Mahoney testified that Mass Save has weatherized hundreds of thousands of homes, reduced bills, avoided emissions, and that the current plan includes budget controls after the DPU ordered $500 million removed from the approved budget. She said the governor’s proposal to have only electric utilities administer the program was intended to reduce administrative costs and align with current implementation trends. Members questioned Mahoney about what counts as marketing and administration, and she said the category includes traditional advertising as well as community-based outreach, customer resource centers, and other customer engagement work, much of it in low- and moderate-income communities. She said administrative and marketing costs are under 5% of the budget, while more than 80% goes to incentives and direct program delivery. Several witnesses then focused on workforce and contractor impacts. Dave Betcher of Abode Energy Management and Rick Taglienti of Rogers Insulation said Mass Save sustains small businesses, creates careers, and supports thousands of jobs; both warned that budget cuts would reduce hiring, training, and work in homes and businesses. They also described a broad ecosystem of suppliers, trainers, and service providers that depends on stable program funding. Other witnesses addressed cost-effectiveness, affordability, and emissions. Anna Johnson of ACEEE said Massachusetts remains a national leader, with Mass Save returning about $2.80 per dollar invested, reducing peak demand, and lowering bills for participants, especially through weatherization and heat pumps. Kyle Murray of Acadia Center said the program is statutorily required to be cost-effective and has avoided billions in supply and infrastructure costs for all ratepayers, including nonparticipants, by lowering overall demand and peak prices. Amy Boyd-Rabin of the Environmental League of Massachusetts argued that efficiency is the cheapest way to meet climate targets and that cutting the budget would force more expensive power generation. The hearing also featured testimony on equity and housing: Mary Wampo described historic under-service to renter-heavy and lower-income communities and said recent reforms, including designated equity communities and performance incentives tied to equity, are helping correct that imbalance; Brian Biot and James Collins of LEAN/ABCD described low-income delivery systems and wraparound services; Barney Heath and John Nannari said Mass Save incentives are essential to affordable housing, passive house construction, and keeping projects on time and on budget. The final witnesses highlighted Connected Solutions and electrification: Sunrun’s Bronte Payne said the virtual power plant program saved more than it cost and helps avoid peaker plants and grid upgrades, and Highland Electric Fleets’ Ben Sondaga said electric school buses can provide similar grid benefits while lowering transportation costs for districts.

Transcript Highlights:

• in these programs.
• This is a pilot program.
• The Paratransit Special Needs Program is primarily an access program.
• Next program is what we call ZAP, Zero Emissions Access Program.
• Next program is what we call ZAP, Zero Emissions Access Program.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The House Transportation Committee held a work session focused heavily on Climate Commitment Act transportation spending and electrification programs. Staff first reviewed roughly $2.2 billion in CCA transportation allocations over three biennia, noting that the largest shares went to public transportation, active transportation, ferry electrification, ZEV programs, rail freight/ports, and planning, with about half of the electrification and fuel-conversion spending tied to state ferries. Members asked for more detail comparing CCA dollars with the broader transportation budget and for total project costs, not just CCA contributions. The Department of Ecology presented on the zero-emission school bus program. Ecology said the legislature codified the program in 2024 and requires electric buses once diesel and electric costs are equivalent, with exemptions available when electric buses cannot meet district needs. Ecology reported $38.3 million in CCA funding for 2025-27, with $21.4 million already obligated or spent to replace 91 diesel buses in 28 districts, plus additional federal EPA funding leveraged for 13 more buses. Members asked about health impacts, parity timing, rural route exemptions, charging and training costs, and whether the program includes infrastructure; Ecology said the grants cover buses, charging, and sometimes training, and that the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction is developing the cost-equivalency formula. The Department of Commerce described its clean transportation role, including EV rebates, charging infrastructure, tribal electric boats, and the EV Coordinating Council. Commerce said its rebate program was designed to lower monthly payments for low-income households, that 89% of recipients said the rebate was essential to their purchase, and that lease incentives helped draw additional federal dollars. Members asked about tribal boat details, utility interconnection and curtailment, range anxiety, and vandalism at charging stations; Commerce said battery storage and managed charging are being used in some projects, some utilities are more responsive than others, and vandalism remains a challenge. The Department of Enterprise Services reported 567 Level 2 and 46 Level 3 charging ports installed at 82 state sites, with 19 more sites in progress and over $100 million in additional candidate projects. DES said most funding is for new infrastructure, though some VW settlement money is used for replacements, and members asked about charger replacement needs, mobile charging, and EV fleet purchasing data. WSDOT then outlined its EV infrastructure and transit programs. It said the Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Partnership program has funded 23 new charging sites this biennium, including overburdened communities and tribal locations, and has supported 264 DC fast-charging ports statewide. WSDOT also described the new Washington Zero Emission Incentive Program, a point-of-sale voucher program for zero-emission commercial vehicles and equipment with $112 million available this biennium; it reported strong early demand, especially for off-road equipment and heavy trucks, and said technical assistance is being provided to help businesses participate. In public transportation, WSDOT said CCA funds support bus and bus facility grants, commute trip reduction, green transportation capital projects, paratransit, tribal transit, zero-emissions access car share, and other mobility projects, with most awards benefiting overburdened communities. Finally, WSDOT’s rail freight and ports division said port electrification projects are underway but spending is still low because of long design, permitting, utility, and supply-chain timelines; it estimated the $89.8 million program could reduce more than 140,000 metric tons of emissions over 10 years. Members questioned the pace of spending, the Northwest Seaport drayage project, and how state funds can leverage additional federal or port resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• Support Program.
• particular program.
• the program up and running for the two remaining programs in the series of programs that we will operate
• : the Loan Participation Program and the Capital Access Program.
• SSBCI program.

Transcript Highlights:

• Market Nutrition Program.
• This program is income-based.
• Currently, right now, my program does work with 47 farmers' markets on the program.
• So the approved supplier program is a farmer capacity and market readiness program.
• So the total program activity proposed. $10.3 million for this program.

Transcript Highlights:

• CFP program.
• credit program.
• those two programs.
• ...that particular program, the Partnership Challenge Loan Program?
• Uh, the state trade and export program is Uh, the state trade and export program is a program by the

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:21:46.720> federal program the chip program the federal program the chip program the federal
• program.
• program forensic mental health program program forensic mental health program um<00:48:45.640>
• County administered County administered programs<01:00:25.799> um programs um programs um this
• > shelter<01:04:55.039> programs emergency shelter programs emergency shelter programs

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met for an introductory overview of its jurisdiction and staff roles. Nonpartisan House Research and House Fiscal staff explained that they draft bills and amendments, prepare bill summaries and background research, answer legal and fiscal questions, and help track revenue and budget effects. They also distributed a Budget Overview Brief intended to condense the larger budget materials into a more usable format for members. Staff then walked through the Human Services budget and the committee’s areas of responsibility. They described the department structure, noting that DHS oversees administration, compliance, rulemaking, and county support, and that the overall Human Services budget is large, with medical assistance as the dominant program. They also explained recent and upcoming reorganizations: many children and family-related functions are moving to the new Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Direct Care and Treatment is becoming its own agency, and some homelessness-related functions remain at DHS. Staff reviewed how the budget is organized by program and budget activity, the difference between direct appropriations and standing appropriations, and how forecasted programs and “tails” work in the budget process. The presentation also covered Medicaid financing and long-term care. Staff explained the federal-state FMAP match, including Minnesota’s current 51.16% federal match for most Medicaid spending, the CHIP match, and the 90% federal share for the expansion population. For long-term care, they outlined Medical Assistance services for elderly and disabled people, state-funded long-term care supports, and Board on Aging programs. They highlighted the personal care assistance program’s phaseout and replacement by Community First Services and Supports, and reviewed the five home- and community-based waivers. Members asked one question about refugee resettlement funding, specifically whether it covers flights; staff said they would need to follow up on the exact use of the federal funds. No bills were heard, and no formal votes or other committee actions were taken during this meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• program.
• Programs that participate programs.
• of those programs those programs are all of those programs self-funded<00:52:18.240> with<00:
• program? program?
• <00:57:02.000> Sim in your program? Sim in your program?

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:09 Approval of Minutes 00:00:48 KOAP Report 00:01:09 Update from CHFS 00:20:27, 958, all

Summary: The meeting opened with a quorum, approval of the September 18, 2025 minutes, and a staff update on recent tobacco settlement-funded agriculture activities. The agriculture side highlighted Commissioner Shell’s outreach, including school visits, farm visits, and speaking engagements in Kentucky and a trip to Tennessee to discuss program models. A representative also described a national conference in Iowa, where Kentucky’s agriculture finance program was praised as a $180 million loan program built with tobacco settlement funds. The board noted September approvals totaling $950,000 for the agriculture development board and $3.3 million for the finance corporation, along with staff activity such as site visits, program closures, and project reports. The board also announced that the KKMP report covering 2015-2022 would be distributed and that the annual report, marking the program’s 25th anniversary, was being prepared. The board then reviewed two featured projects. The Organic Association of Kentucky requested $425,000 for organic producer support, but the board approved only one year of funding at $29,000, with members noting concern about recurring applicants and the need to evaluate long-term funding. The second project, by Joseph Dale Bentley in Lewis County, sought $51,300 to expand a small ruminant facility for goat production and export. Members were particularly interested because the project was already operating and creating market opportunities for Kentucky goat producers; the board approved half the project cost to help expand infrastructure and potentially allow quarantining on site. The cabinet then presented its annual update on tobacco settlement fund use in public health. Julie Brooks, Sarah Johnson, and Andrea Day reported on the HANS home visitation program, tobacco prevention and cessation efforts, lung cancer screening, and early childhood oral health. HANS served more families in FY25, rising from 6,293 to 6,715, and increased services from 139,943 to over 143,000. Tobacco prevention and cessation programs continued to support Quit Now Kentucky and My Life, My Quit, though officials noted federal uncertainty and the loss of federal tobacco control infrastructure. They also reported a slight decline in student outreach and cessation requests, but continued demand from schools and communities for vaping and nicotine prevention support. Lung cancer screening expanded to 55 screens, with Kentucky cited as a model for other states due to improved incidence, survival, and early detection rates. Early oral health efforts continued through local health departments, with more trainings for public health nurses, continued varnish kits, and expanded support for dental graduates and hygiene teams.

Transcript Highlights:

• As Chair Addis had mentioned in our opening comments, the C-BAS program is certainly a vital program
• Why would we cut this program?
• are providing the cost savings that Programs are providing the cost savings that these programs are
• The IHSS program is the largest home and community-based services program in the United States.
• with additional program data.

Summary: The joint Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused first on long-term services and supports for older adults, especially the “forgotten/overlooked middle” who earn too much for Medi-Cal but cannot afford private long-term care. Administration witnesses from DHCS, the Department of Aging, and Social Services described Medicare’s limited long-term care coverage, Medi-Cal’s role, the elimination of the Medi-Cal asset test, and ongoing state studies and listening sessions on financing options. Testimony from advocates and researchers emphasized rising homelessness among older adults, the need for better navigation and coordination across health, aging, housing, and social service systems, and short-term policy steps such as share-of-cost reform, housing stability supports, and protecting home- and community-based services. Members highlighted the need for a coordinated, no-wrong-door approach and asked for the most impactful budget investments to address affordability and homelessness risk. The second major topic was the Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS) program. CDA reported that CBAS helps participants remain in the community, that 304 centers operate statewide serving about 42,000 people, and that demand is stable but access gaps remain in some regions. DHCS explained that a 2024 rate increase authorized by SB 159 became inoperative after Proposition 35, and that a separate 10% rate change on the fee schedule was the result of a DHCS system error; the department said it would not require recoupment, though managed care plans may act under their contracts. CBAS providers and advocates warned that reimbursement rates have not kept pace with costs, that several centers have closed, and that clawbacks could trigger more closures. They requested $74.8 million ongoing General Fund to close part of the rate gap and preserve the program, while members expressed concern about closures and the cost savings of keeping people out of more expensive institutional care. The hearing then moved to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) and statewide collective bargaining. CDSS reviewed provider recruitment and retention efforts, including electronic timesheets, direct deposit, and the now-completed IHSS Career Pathways program, which trained more than 59,000 providers. CDSS also summarized its AB 102 workgroup report on statewide versus regional bargaining, saying the final report would be sent to the Legislature soon and that statewide bargaining appeared more viable than regional bargaining, though it would require clear statutory scope and major fiscal changes. The department estimated that each $1 per hour statewide wage increase would cost at least $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion annually. Labor advocates argued that IHSS wages, benefits, and training are too inconsistent across counties and called for statewide bargaining, consumer participation, and ongoing state funding. County representatives supported stronger wages but cautioned that counties need protection from new costs and administrative burdens, and consumer advocates warned that moving bargaining to the state could weaken local consumer control and the program’s consumer-driven structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• programs.
• We did not end up including appendices of all the required programs for every program.
• programming.
• They have a sliding scale in terms of tuition but their program is not a free program.
• These are state programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• training program.
• > loan program this program provides loan program this program provides loan repayment<00:47:15.720
• for this program um this is a program for this program um this is a program that<01:01:49.160>
• grant program um this another program grant program um this another program we've<01:09:56.920><
• This program is available for students who are attending a comprehensive transition program, a CTP program

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• IF ANY PROGRAMS DO NOT MEET THE TARGETS BEGINNING IN 2026 THOSE PARTICULAR PROGRAMS WOULD BE SLATED TO
• AND PROGRAMS THEY HAVE ELIGIBLE UNDER THE OPEN-DOOR WORKFORCE PROGRAM.
• WE ARE LAUNCHING NEW PROGRAMS.
• DEGREE PROGRAMS IN 16 BACHELOR’S DEGREE PROGRAMS.
• JUST FOR OUR PROGRAMS.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• around children and families, and programs that run our Direct Care and Treatment program.
• So licensing those services is key to enhancing the program integrity for that program.
• So licensing those services is key to enhancing the program integrity for that program.
• <00:40:14.079> um program Integrity for that program um program Integrity for that program
• <01:31:17.639> are Shelf program and food bank programs are Shelf program and food bank programs

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Mississippi has two programs, Ohio has five programs, and Wisconsin has four programs.
• Florida has two programs, and Tennessee has two programs.
• There are some voucher programs, ESA programs, tax credit scholars, and other scholarship programs across
• , but programs across the board.
• With respect to ESA programs, some data around what program funds are being used for.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a tremendous program.
• The RFA's loan programs, including the beginning farmer loan program and restructuring loan program,
• The RFA's loan programs, including the beginning farmer loan program and restructuring loan program,
• The RFA's loan programs, including the beginning farmer loan program and restructuring loan program,
• <01:13:01.040> has<01:13:01.199> been program and this grant program has been program

Bills: HF770, HF857, HF38, HF1500, HF43

Keywords: HF770, Rural Finance Authority, RFA, capital investment, state bonds, general obligation bonds, bonding bill, agricultural loans, farm loans, beginning farmer, new farmer, seller-sponsored loans, loan restructuring, agricultural improvement loans, livestock expansion, modernization loans, rural development, Minnesota agriculture, farm credit, chapter 41B

Transcript Highlights:

• from the program.
• for the IST solutions program.
• And for some programs, that was also a deterrent for partnering in the program.
• And for some programs, that was also a deterrent for partnering in the program.
• understanding of program costs.

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.