Transcript Highlights:

• So we don't fund based on students; we fund based on units.
• They just need to have secondary students. Students for that funding.
• How does it make sense to measure them, and then how does that translate into funding needs and spending
• I'm not funded at the level I need." And so you put in. our hands to say, well, is that the fact?
• Funding as the adequacy modeling for the base funding.

Committee: Senate Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• What I needed in each of those roles was a funding stream that I could count on year to year.
• I need students that you're not eligible for a funding windfall that would come outside of Proposition
• of the funding... ...to their schools, have been to those schools, and they're in dire need of the funding
• We agree that students need more funding, and we support additional funding for higher-need students.
• Students do not just need another vote. Our state needs it. They need diverse representation.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations heard SCA 5, the Education Equalization Act, which would create an Equalization Reserve in the General Fund funded only in strong budget years with non-Prop 98 dollars. Senator Cortese and supporters argued it would provide a stable, ongoing stream of funding to reduce per-pupil disparities between basic-aid and non-basic-aid districts without reducing the Prop 98 minimum guarantee. Supporters included education foundation, school board, administrator, employee, and business representatives. Opponents, including the California Charter Schools Association, argued the measure unfairly excludes charter and county school students and could worsen inequities; some committee members also raised concerns about its fiscal effects and constitutional structure. The committee ultimately voted 4-0 to adopt SCA 5, with the measure kept on call for additional members. The committee then took up a series of Assembly bills, most of which were suspense-file candidates and were moved without objection after brief or waived presentations and no opposition testimony. AB 402, AB 708, AB 1080, AB 1126, AB 1235, AB 1555, AB 1641, ACA 7, AB 1672, AB 1943, AB 2565, and AB 2571 were all sent to suspense. AB 1204 drew testimony from school district leaders and coalition members who said it would worsen LCFF funding disparities by shifting future growth away from the base grant; the bill was opposed and moved to suspense. AB 1672 received support from CalPACE. The Department of Finance did not attend and had no comments on the measures. Finally, ACA 18 was presented as a constitutional amendment to double student voting seats on the UC Board of Regents, creating separate undergraduate and graduate student representation. The author and UC student witnesses said the change would strengthen student voice on issues such as tuition, housing, basic needs, and free speech, and would align UC with CSU and community college governance. There was no opposition testimony, but the committee treated ACA 18 as a suspense-file candidate and moved it to suspense without objection. The hearing then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• capital assets line if the board determines that additional funds are needed for that capital asset.
• Section 32 authorizes the board to adjust FTE positions as needed, subject to the availability of funds
• They need to justify it. They need to justify it. They need to justify it.
• So that's general fund? I'm sorry, with that general fund? So, Mr.
• it in general fund just to make it clear what the funding source was.

Bills: SB2003

Committee: House Appropriations - Education and Environment Division

Summary: The committee met to work through the higher education budget, beginning with a conflict-of-interest request from Representative Martinson, who was excused from voting because of a partnership that leases office space to Bismarck State College. Members then reviewed the higher education institution budget sheets, covering ongoing and one-time funding items for campuses and system projects such as BSC housing, Lake Region roof repairs, UND’s STEM and National Security Crossroads projects, the UND allied health facility, NDSU projects including New Horizons, DSU deferred maintenance and campus security, Mayville’s Old Main, Minot projects, and the regional health institutes. Members also discussed student financial assistance, the professional student exchange program, IT security funding, and workforce/education innovation grants. Several amendments and policy questions were debated. The committee adopted an amendment to make workforce education innovation grants competitive rather than automatically distributed, and then voted to remove language prohibiting those funds from being used to duplicate academic programs. Members also removed similar anti-duplication language from the New Horizons section. They agreed to extend the UND hyperbaric chamber transfer authority to 2027 and clarified language around UND land-sale proceeds. A proposed amendment to add $5.6 million for the Wahpeton State School of Science building purchase failed for lack of a second, and a proposal to restore fetal alcohol spectrum disorder funding to UND was left for conference. The committee also discussed, but did not add, a tuition cap change, a study on the Praxis exam, and several governance-related provisions. The committee spent significant time on broader higher education policy items, including a $3 million enterprise resource planning request for the university system, a $2 million grant program for students who are pregnant, recently gave birth, or are caring for young children, and a $1.1 million request for library age-verification software tied to the Odin system. Members also discussed dual-credit authority for UND and NDSU, a goal for the UND medical school to increase North Dakota resident enrollment, and intent language regarding the commissioner/chancellor model and presidential search authority. At the end of the meeting, the committee approved the amendments and then gave the higher education budget a do-pass recommendation as amended, with Representative Sanford designated as the carrier. The Forest Service budget was also approved, including two additional FTEs, and the committee adjourned after noting it would continue with other budgets the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's something about them, whether there's no longer an industry need, maybe funding fell through,
• So if they need to build a new student union at Williston, would they still have to go to student funding
• Now, they would still need to secure matching funds from somewhere under this proposal, and generally
• And this is more to the other appropriators, but we need—and I got scolded for 20 months for not funding
• it a couple years ago, but we did fund it—but I think that needs to be in the consideration of all of

Committee: Joint Higher Education Funding Review Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• We wanted as many businesses that needed the funding to be able to access the funding.
• You need to hit up to 80 percent of tranche one before they release the funds for tranche two.
• And she pitched them, and what she got back was, "We only fund based digital health companies that need
• We need funding for that. We need a vehicle for that. Correct me so that I understand.
• The other piece that we need is funding for an incubator.

Committee: House New Mexico Finance Authority Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• The reason they first looked at New Mexico was because of that VC fund saying, you need to look at New
• The reason they first looked at New Mexico was because of that VC fund saying, you need to look at New
• Our Healthy Foods program had 132 applications for funding, and the need well exceeded the capacity of
• So, LIDA, JTIP, site readiness, because again, we need those sites, we need those closing funds and the
• and additional funding that's needed in order to maintain. ...ensure that we continue to serve New Mexicans

Summary: The committee first recognized Mark Roper of the Economic Development Department for his long service and retirement, with members and the secretary praising his work on economic development across the state. Secretary Rob Black then presented EDD’s budget and special appropriation requests, describing strong recent job and income growth and outlining the department’s strategy around science and technology, site readiness, workforce development, foreign direct investment, and rural/community programs. He highlighted wins in advanced energy, quantum, space and defense, and biosciences, and asked for funding for quantum/DARPA matching funds, additional site readiness work, LIDA closing funds, JTIP training support, New Mexico Partnership, and healthy foods and other community programs. Members asked detailed questions about the quantum proposal, site readiness, the new mapping tool for industrial sites, workforce participation, trade missions, foreign investment, tariffs, water and produced water, tribal site evaluation, and public engagement on major projects. Black said the quantum request was intended to match federal dollars and build a workforce pipeline, that the site-readiness software would be a set enterprise license, and that the department was working with tribes and local partners on future site evaluations. He also said tariffs have created uncertainty but New Mexico’s infrastructure and foreign trade zones could help attract manufacturing, and he acknowledged concerns about transparency and community input while noting that some projects, such as Pacific Fusion, had gone through extensive public processes. The committee also discussed specific projects and funding balances, including Mantis Space’s move to Albuquerque, the status of Virgin Galactic’s spaceport lease, and the current LIDA fund balance and encumbrances. Black and Deputy Secretary Isaac Romero said the department was trying to use State Investment Council-backed venture funds to attract companies and that the new investments were already producing deals and jobs. Members generally supported the department’s direction but pressed for more targeted expertise, faster deployment, and stronger community involvement in future economic development decisions. Later, Secretary de Blassie of the Department of Health presented the department’s budget request and progress report. He said DOH had improved revenue cycle management, reduced old Medicaid-pending cases, increased census at facilities, improved budget and contract timeliness, and responded effectively to the measles outbreak. The department requested additional base funding for epidemiology and response, the DOH helpline, the Vital Records Virtual Vault, state labs, and the veterans home, along with special requests for respiratory vaccinations and marketing and lab equipment replacement. He also noted progress on MOUD and the medical psilocybin program, and said the department was not seeking to launch new programs given the limited time left in the administration.

Transcript Highlights:

• Someone's gonna need the additional funding.
• We are not seeing an increase in. in funding, increased need.
• We really need funding to support that effort.
• We desperately need a better teacher evaluation System, the funding that we have, the $12 million that
• This is the first year of three-year funding, but we need some funding to go through the SCG similar

Transcript Highlights:

• The program needed a GR pickup to maintain the same level of funding.
• It was very hard to find funds to even address some of these much-needed changes.
• It was very hard to find funds to even address some of these much-needed changes.
• The state has been funding this. I think we do need a little more time.
• I mean, we do not need to be funding CEOs' salaries.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> going</c><00:05:08.479><c> forward,</c> funding, what's needed going forward, funding, what's needed
• You asked the question, is the same level of funding needed?
• </c> questions, is the same level of funding questions, is the same level of funding needed?
• And so we need, and that's why we appreciate the closing fund.
• We need the appreciate the closing fund.

Summary: The committee received an update from Secretary Jeff Noel of the Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development, joined by Matt Wingate and Terry Bradshaw of the Kentucky Association of Economic Developers, on the Kentucky Product Development Initiative (KPDI) and the closing fund. The presentation focused on how KPDI helps communities develop shovel-ready industrial sites by funding infrastructure, engineering, geotechnical work, and other site-preparation costs. Noel emphasized that the program is designed to reduce uncertainty for companies, improve speed to market, and support statewide job creation and investment, especially in rural and eastern Kentucky where development costs are often higher. Testimony highlighted the complexity and expense of preparing sites, with examples of road, water, power, and rock-removal costs, and the importance of third-party evaluation in scoring applications. Noel said the program has 116 total projects statewide, with 20 active projects stemming from pilot efforts and 35 projects already resulting in about 6,381 jobs and $4.4 billion in investment. He cited examples including Crown Holdings, Flash Metals, Phoenix Paper, Pratt Paper, AESC, Sound Elements, Kitchen Foods, Latte, Krueger, Biomass, and Anna Munsman. Bradshaw added that even communities that have not yet landed a project have benefited by building spec buildings or improving access to industrial property. The speakers said the last KPDI round drew $81 million in requests but only $35 million in available funding, and they urged lawmakers to consider whether additional funding or program adjustments are needed. Suggested changes included modestly increasing eligibility or funding flexibility for rural and eastern Kentucky, while maintaining third-party performance metrics, and continuing to prioritize finishing existing parks and creating strong regional sites. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• And with every federal funding source declining, we will need to bring up more funding for public health
• But, you know, so I don't know what that means in terms of the level of funding that is needed.
• But, you know, so I don't know what that means in terms of the level of funding that is needed.
• I think that the assessment needs to happen in time for funding to happen for this program.
• And so, if it's not done, then it needs to be funded until the assessment is done.

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, we fund our other Song-Brown programs. through special funds and one-time general fund
• Instead, there should be a needs-based funding model that prioritizes serving medically underserved areas
• And the level of funding they may need, whether that's for development, or some of them didn't require
• The California Health Data and Planning Fund will cover the balance of funding needed to support the
• Fund, with the remainder being special funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• This proposal will also benefit out-of-state producers when we need to focus funds on in-state transportation
• Fund backfill.
• of the dire situation of the General Fund, we've needed to use that discretionary funding instead of
• This $9.9 million BCP represents the absolute minimum level of funding needed to maintain the core functions
• Thank you. ...funding to backfill for the Tier 3 funds.

Summary: The subcommittee heard testimony on the governor’s proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit, which would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold for use in California from 2026 to 2036. The Department of Finance and CARB argued the credit would help decarbonize aviation, support refinery transitions, and keep fuel production and jobs in California. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited climate benefits, and would reduce diesel excise tax revenue that supports highways, local streets and roads, and other transportation programs. A major point of debate was whether the credit would simply shift limited feedstocks from renewable diesel to SAF rather than create new low-carbon fuel supply. Professor Aaron Smith and the LAO said that because feedstocks such as used cooking oil, tallow, and vegetable oils are limited and already used in other fuel markets, the policy could increase SAF at the expense of renewable diesel, with possible increases in fuel prices and little net emissions benefit. Administration and CARB staff disputed that outcome, saying additional waste-based feedstocks are available and that the policy would not meaningfully raise gasoline or diesel prices. Senators focused on feedstock availability, impacts on road funding, fairness to consumers, and whether the proposal was really aimed at preserving specific refineries such as Phillips 66. Public comment was sharply divided. Labor representatives, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, airports, and some local residents supported the proposal, emphasizing jobs, refinery investment, and aviation’s need for a liquid-fuel decarbonization pathway. Environmental and transportation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, World Resources Institute, Earthjustice, California Environmental Voters, counties, cities, and trucking and asphalt associations, opposed it, citing weak net climate benefits, possible fuel-price impacts, and losses to transportation funding. No vote was taken; the chair announced all items would be held open for a future hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• That growth could increase the need for scholarship funding to nearly $75.3 million for new applicants
• That growth could increase the need for scholarship funding to nearly $75.3 million for new applicants
• Do we probably need to re-look at the funding mechanism? Yes. Because right now it's flat, right?
• So we feel like we need, and it was funded last year, but it was funded as a contract.
• So we feel like we need, and it was funded last year, but it was funded as a contract.

Summary: The committee first heard the Office of State Treasurer’s FY27 budget presentation from Treasurer Vivek Malik. He highlighted record investment earnings, growth in MOBUCK$ linked deposits, record unclaimed property returns, expansion of the MOST 529 plan, and changes to the MoABLE disability savings program. Members then focused heavily on two budget requests: $750,000 for the Show Me My Retirement Savings program and additional spending authority for the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (MOST Scholars) program, along with a staffing request for compliance and communications positions. Much of the discussion centered on MOST Scholars’ rapid growth, how applications are prioritized, whether income is reverified, how funds flow through educational assistance organizations, and concerns about marketing, geographic distribution, and the use of public dollars for private schools. The treasurer also answered questions about the 529 plan, the pending lawsuit over the ESA general-revenue transfer, and whether funds should be swept back to general revenue when unused. Several members raised policy objections to MOST Scholars, including concerns about discrimination by participating private schools, the lack of annual income requalification, and whether the program shifts money away from public education. Other members defended the program as a parent-driven choice option and asked about expanding access, improving outreach, and ensuring the program is fully funded. The treasurer said the office was following the statute as written, that the program’s demand could exceed available resources, and that the office would continue to seek more funding and better outreach. The committee then concluded the treasurer’s budget hearing. The committee next began the FY27 budget hearing for the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development. Commissioner Bennett Boggs introduced the department’s leadership team and gave a brief overview of the department’s role in aligning postsecondary education with workforce needs through its coordinating board and strategic planning. The hearing had just started when the transcript ended, and no votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• those funds could be spent in other places, I think we'd like to know whether that money really needs
• Cost allocation, which wasn't needed and used, and then also the Economic Development Advancement Fund
• community that's trying to utilize these funds, they need to have leveraged all those.
• They just need the ability to...” “And again, this is just one funding mechanism for them, right?
• funds.

Summary: The House Budget Committee heard the Department of Economic Development’s fiscal year 2027 budget presentation, beginning with Director Michelle Hadaway and division leaders. The department emphasized that most of its budget is federally funded and walked through requests for regional engagement, international trade and investment offices, business recruitment and marketing, Delta Regional Authority dues, business and community solutions, tax increment financing, MODESA, DRPP, CDBG, disaster recovery, Missouri Main Street, AmeriCorps, Missouri One Start, the Missouri Technology Corporation, semiconductor and API reshoring efforts, SSBCI, and other economic development items. Members repeatedly asked about lapses, one-time appropriations, whether general revenue could be reduced or replaced with other funds, and how the department prioritizes federal and other non-GR sources. Several members also praised regional engagement, Missouri Partnership, and rural economic development efforts. A major portion of the discussion focused on specific one-time or performance-based projects. Members questioned the large GR transfer for TIFs and MODESA, the use of funds for the Urban League plaza renovation, the Northeast Missouri housing fund, the Highway MM corridor, and the Missouri Technology Corporation. Department witnesses explained that many of these amounts are based on projected performance or are tied to multi-year obligations, and that some unspent balances reflect project timing, federal reimbursement timing, or delayed construction. The committee also discussed the Missouri Main Street program, with staff explaining it supports both new and existing Main Street communities and can be adapted for county-wide models. The committee spent significant time on workforce and innovation programs. Missouri One Start described its customized training and upskilling programs, including a statutory fund switch to align with existing law, while members asked for more data on participation and impact. Missouri Technology Corporation explained that reduced funding last year limited some entrepreneur-support programs, and that its venture fund has leveraged state dollars into private capital and jobs. Members also discussed the API reshoring item and semiconductor funding, asking what the money would do, what companies would benefit, and how much federal leverage the state could expect. Witnesses said the API request supports a nonprofit center working with existing Missouri companies to reshore pharmaceutical production, while the semiconductor item is tied to federal matching opportunities that have moved slowly. The committee did not take final action on the budget during the portion of the hearing provided. The chair recessed the committee to go to session, stating that the hearing would resume afterward and that public testimony on House Bill 2007 would follow completion of the department presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• to fully fund public education and to work on the responses that our counties and other systems need
• to fully fund public education to work on the responses that our counties and other systems need for
• Actually, legal aid funding in parts of the budget are available for citizens who are in need.
• I will say in order for this to be an effective solution, we need to make sure that these funds are used
• funding.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the 2026 Budget Act, which leaders said was the negotiated compromise with the Senate and was expected to move to the floor that evening. Opening remarks emphasized that the plan balances the budget over two years, reduces the structural deficit, and builds reserves, while also protecting core services in the face of federal cuts. Jason Sisney outlined the legislative budget framework and the likely floor bills, including AB 109, SB 110, SB 122, and SB 125. Department of Finance representative Eric Khali said the administration appreciated the two-year balanced approach and supported the modification in SB 122, while noting the package uses additional revenues and new spending to soften or reject some proposed cuts. Most of the discussion focused on major spending areas. Members and subcommittee chairs highlighted protections and additions for health care and human services, including rejecting the proposed Medi-Cal asset limit change, delaying premium increases, restoring clinic and dental funding, supporting distressed hospitals and county indigent care, and expanding county eligibility staffing to handle H.R. 1-related workload. Education members described record or expanded support for TK-12 schools, child care, special education, community colleges, teacher recruitment, and higher education, including a change to extend Cal Grant eligibility to age 30 for some community college students. Housing and homelessness funding was increased for HAP, multifamily housing, and the low-income housing tax credit, while public safety members pointed to investments in victims’ services, restorative justice, and prison closure savings. Several members also raised concerns or priorities tied to the budget deal. Some praised the package as a moral document that protects vulnerable Californians, immigrant communities, LGBTQ residents, seniors, and people with disabilities. Others noted unresolved issues, including the MCO tax’s impact on districts, the need for more support for local journalism, arts, biotech R&D incentives, transit and GGRF-related concerns, and the need for continued work on Prop. 98 and long-term fiscal resilience. The vice chair cautioned that despite the current progress, the state remains vulnerable to revenue volatility and warned that the budget should build more resilience against a possible downturn. No formal vote was taken in the portion provided, but the committee was preparing the budget package for floor action and final negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Counties need immediate access to the $20 million General Fund set aside in the 2025 Budget Act and an
• We need new funding for training, for ABOD screening, and to bolster our employment supports.
• But as we face this unprecedented need, we know that we will definitely need more funding in the future
• I also want to support the need to fund emergency food banks and CalFood funding.
• To truly serve our communities, we need funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• We just need more funding. We need more funding.
• We need to fix it and we need to fund it.
• So if it's the public subsidies that we would need to be looking at and some additional state funding
• So if it's the public subsidies that we would need to be looking at in some additional state funding,
• We do need to fund, and we also need to make sure that we're using our resources as efficiently as possible

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• So our choice is to perpetuate a funding model that does not address the needs of the state, does not
• And then the funding would be allocated based on how well they're serving the needs of the state, the
• needs of the students.
• institutions in this case primarily, will know what they need to do to continue to receive the funding
• We think that this needs to be broad; we need to have many options on the table.

Committee: House Higher Education and Workforce Development

Transcript Highlights:

• 14 of which are funded by the General Fund.
• Special or other funds and 14 of which are funded by the General Fund.
• We need a $15 million allocation from GGRF or general funds to keep this program ready for the next disaster
• And so we do need more time, so I support the $45 million that we're requesting out of the general fund
• And so we do need more time, so I support the $45 million that we're requesting out of the general fund

Transcript Highlights:

• The truth is for the public health funds that Congress appropriated, those funds are not only to respond
• The Title X federal funding cuts first.
• These funds have not just been helpful; they are foundational. These are foundational funds.
• We need testing capacity, and we need these data systems to get out of faxing and spreadsheets.
• We need to take action on the rebate fund in both supporting the repayment of funds and having it go