Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:07:32.960><c> and</c> per year savings to this transfer and per year savings to this transfer
• <00:12:42.720><c> on</c><00:12:42.959><c> the</c> funds on the funds on the weatherization?
• appropriation and then a transfer.
• . transfer. transfer.
• Uh, I think fund government.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, did I hear you say that the funds from the school impact fees have already been transferred to SFA
• transferred to SFA and you folks are currently using fair share funding for these core projects?
• c><00:46:39.119><c> funds</c><00:46:39.359><c> were</c> transfer the funds that the funds were transfer
• the funds that the funds were in<00:46:39.839><c> fact</c><00:46:40.079><c> transferred?
• Transfer. Next, we'll transfer the school impact fees into SFA's special fund.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint House committees on Housing and Education heard HB 1713, HD1, which would repeal school impact fees and transfer remaining balances in the school impact fee and certain fair share accounts to the school facilities special fund. The Department of Education testified in opposition, while the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, the Attorney General’s office (with comments and suggested constitutional amendments), the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, NAP Hawaii, Avalon Development Company, Mark Development, Maui Chamber of Commerce, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Landis Research Foundation, BIA Hawaii, and others testified in support. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii offered comments. The DOE said the bill would weaken a key tool for matching school facilities to residential growth, while supporters said the current program leaves funds unused or restricted in ways that limit their effectiveness. A lengthy discussion followed about the difference between the older school impact fee program and the separate fair share agreements tied to land use entitlements and change-of-zone approvals. DOE Deputy Superintendent Jesse Suki explained that fair share funds are tied to the district where they were collected, may be too small to build a full school on their own, and are held until needed for projects such as Core Ridge, Central and West Maui, and other planned schools. Committee members pressed DOE on why funds had remained unspent for years, how much money was in the accounts, and whether the department had reviewed audit findings about the program. Members also questioned whether homeowners ultimately bear these costs through developers passing them along. The committee did not take a vote during the portion of the meeting provided. The discussion ended with members and DOE debating whether the current statute should remain in place, whether past entitlements should be affected, and whether the bill should be amended to better address remaining construction-related obligations and the use of collected funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• functions, and these transfers are often described as general fund transfers, payments in lieu of taxes
• of some water revenues to cities' general funds, general fund transfers.
• Limiting even a portion of the general fund transfers could fund substantial improvements, such as faster
• So to clarify, you can do a general fund transfer.
• So does it transfer to the general fund as well? It does, yes.

Committee: Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of transfers admitted to UC.
• , transfer enrollment, and transfer student success.
• at the time of transfer.
• And might I add more transfer?
• , a goal transfer rate?

Summary: The committee held an oversight hearing on a state audit examining California’s community college transfer process and whether streamlining it could improve access to bachelor’s degrees. Opening remarks from legislators emphasized that California’s transfer system is central to equity and workforce development, but that only about one in five transfer-intending community college students complete a transfer within four years. Members highlighted disparities by race, region, campus, and major, and pointed to confusion created by differing requirements across the UC, CSU, and community college systems, including limits and inconsistencies in the Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT), TAG, and major-specific prerequisites. State Auditor’s staff said the audit found that while UC and CSU systemwide enroll more transfer students than the Master Plan target, individual campuses and high-demand STEM programs often do not. The audit identified barriers including unclear and varying course requirements, limited counseling and education plans, insufficient counselor staffing at some campuses, and weak equity plans. It also found that many students never even apply because they do not accumulate enough units or cannot navigate the process. The auditor described examples where transfer students with strong preparation were denied at selective campuses and noted that articulation alignment across systems remains limited. Representatives from UC, CSU, and the Community Colleges responded that transfer remains a top priority and described ongoing reforms. UC cited a new public dashboard, data-sharing agreements, new transfer pathways, and an ADT pilot at UCLA, while saying campus-level capacity and program differences limit how much can be standardized from the system office. CSU said it admits more than 90% of eligible transfer applicants, is expanding transfer planning tools and direct outreach, and is implementing SB 640’s Transfer Success Pathway Program. Community Colleges said transfer reform must focus on clearer credit mobility, more consistent articulation, and broader ADT adoption. Members pressed the systems on inconsistent major requirements, the need for better coordination, and whether campuses are fully prioritizing transfer students; no votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• These 12% of excess carry forward funds toward previously funded projects or deferred maintenance needs
• The PCB also authorizes the use of state funds.
• We are transferring a $2.5 million from USF to New College.
• So we are transferring that money over.
• internal state funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill transfers $130 million from the affordable housing fund to the general fund.
• This bill transfers $130 million from the affordable housing fund to the general fund.
• It also transfers $400,000 from the special cash fund to the general fund on June 30, 2026.
• 04:20:16.080><c> for</c> fund so the first transfer is for fund so the first transfer is for species<
• It is transferred into the general fund.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So it shows up as a zero, and that's because it's that fund, excuse me, that transfer between account
• transfer... there was a $15 million general fund transfer in FY24 for semiconductor workforce expansion
• But it's a dedicated fund, so it does require legislative action to transfer it into the general fund
• In the budget book, it shows us a general fund cash transfer of the governor's recommendation of $10
• fund versus the other programs we are the ARPA funds.

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The committee heard budget presentations first for the Idaho Workforce Development Council. Analyst Brooke Dupree reviewed the agency’s statutory role, funding sources, staffing, and FY27 requests, including an ongoing transfer within the In Demand Careers Fund to increase trustee and benefit payments for Idaho Launch grants, a proposal to consolidate the STEM Action Center into the council, and requests for reappropriation authority for several grant funds. Director Wendy Sechrist said Launch, workforce training, semiconductor, and child care grants have produced strong participation and wage gains, and she explained that the proposed STEM merger would transfer remaining dedicated-fund balances to the Workforce Development Training Fund. Members asked about the effect of a $10 million cash transfer on Launch awards, repayment of grants by students who do not meet requirements, and the use of employer training funds; Sechrist said wording such as “up to $10 million” would avoid reducing awards and that the agency is still exploring debt collection options. The committee then reviewed the Idaho Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Dupree outlined the agency’s vocational rehabilitation and independent living services, its dedicated funds, and FY27 requests for additional appropriation to spend Social Security reimbursement revenue and for replacement vehicles from the adaptive aids fund. Administrator Beth Cunningham said the agency uses those funds to support clients’ employment and independence, and that the requested increases would help cover needed vehicles and offset other costs. She also said holdbacks would have a modest effect on services, including reduced site restoration funding and some cuts to client services and travel. Finally, the Idaho State Historical Society presented its budget. Dupree described the agency’s preservation mission, staffing, dedicated funds, and FY27 requests, including $450,000 for the second year of moving state records and collections into a new archives addition, plus IT hardware and reappropriation authority. Director Janet Gallimore emphasized stewardship of state records and artifacts, the importance of the collections move, and the agency’s role in America 250 activities. Members asked about archaeological review travel, the agency’s long tenure, and the use of miscellaneous revenue; Gallimore agreed to provide travel records and thanked the committee for its support. The meeting ended with a presentation of historical artifacts and adjournment until the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• could be transferred.
• to transferability.
• funds.
• But we are in conversations with several companies that are funded by funds funded by the SIC that Several
• companies that are funded by funds funded by the SIC are doing exgeneration manufacturing of housing

Summary: The committee heard testimony on the committee substitute for House Bill 27, which would modernize New Mexico’s research and development tax credit. Sponsors said the bill would allow the credit to be stacked with industrial revenue bonds for qualifying facilities, exclude data centers and national laboratories, permit up to $50 million in transferable credits per year for 2026-2028, and extend the carry-forward period to seven years. Supporters from business, construction, labor, and economic development groups argued the changes would improve cash flow for startups, help attract and retain high-wage jobs, and encourage commercialization of New Mexico-developed technology in sectors such as advanced energy, aerospace, fusion, and advanced manufacturing. Several witnesses emphasized that the bill was intended to keep commercialization and capital investment in New Mexico rather than losing them to other states. Committee members raised concerns about tax policy, fiscal impact, and whether the bill would truly lead to commercialization. Questions focused on the transferability provision, the $50 million annual cap, who could buy credits, whether data centers should be excluded, how the bill interacts with IRBs and other incentives, and whether the labs could benefit. Some members supported the bill’s goals but worried it was too narrowly tailored or could create winners and losers. The sponsors and administration witnesses responded that the bill was designed to tie R&D to physical infrastructure, provide capital to early-stage companies, and protect the general fund with caps and time limits. They also said the bill would not apply to national labs and would not change existing rural-area doubling provisions. After extensive discussion and no opposition testimony, the committee did not advance the bill. Representative Cadena moved to table the committee substitute for House Bill 27, Representative Parra made the second, and the motion passed without opposition, so the bill was tabled.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are restricted reserve fund transfer requests.
• These are restricted reserve fund transfer requests.
• So do we have how much that direct transfer from the performance fund is going to be?
• We're transferring appropriation over from that, but it's not funding. I got you. Right.
• , but that would be where a fund transfer would go over.

Committee: All JBC-PEER REVIEW

Summary: The PEER Review Subcommittee met to consider a large agenda of budget, appropriation, transfer, and contract items. Members approved temporary appropriation requests for several agencies, including the Auditor of State, Department of Education, and Labor and Licensing; ARPA return requests from Workforce Services; Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act requests for State Police and Agriculture; restricted reserve transfers for teacher scholarships, school facilities, and economic stimulus; a Commerce reallocation of positions and spending authority; cash fund, budget classification, overtime, and pay plan requests; and 17 methods of finance items for universities and other agencies. Most items were approved without objection after brief explanations from staff and agencies. Several items drew questions and were held or discussed further. A Department of Human Services discretionary grant package for the RSVP program was held over after Senator Irvin raised concerns about whether the grants were an effective use of state general revenue and asked for more information on administration costs and program operations. In the contracts section, Representative Richardson questioned a DHS sole-source contract with EMS Link for document management software and a DHS contract with Presidio; the EMS Link item was held for additional answers, while the Presidio item was clarified as not sole-source and was allowed to proceed. Members also asked for more information on a Department of Education mental health referral contract with Care Solace, which officials said is a statewide concierge/referral service connecting students to Arkansas providers and telehealth options. The committee also reviewed monthly reports, including the Medicaid Trust Fund. DHS and DFA officials said the fund was currently sufficient to finish the fiscal year, though it was being drawn down and would likely require a $100 million transfer from restricted reserves in FY27, with another $100 million set aside in the governor’s budget as a backstop. Members discussed the need to define a minimum reserve level and to better account for ongoing Medicaid costs in the budget. The meeting ended with no further business and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• in one-time funding.”
• These are things that we have to fund regardless of how much state funding we get.
• versus growth fund.
• So the funding is challenging.
• Some of them may be using state funding. Some of them may be using local funding.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• from the general fund.
• That one specifically, the legislature transferred $275 million to the fund last year, and so this is
• , you see a cash transfer from the Permanent Building Fund back to the general fund of $33,745,000.
• Building Fund... ...transferred about $1.1 billion into the Permanent Building Fund for statewide projects
• Does the Idaho Code allow for these transfers back to the general fund, or do we have to work on that

Summary: The committee met to review materials in preparation for Friday votes on the 2026 Budget Rescission Act, related cash transfers, and statewide budget decisions. Keith Bybee of budget policy analysis walked members through packets showing the governor’s recommended 3% holdback rescissions, plus additional 1% and 2% reduction scenarios. He explained that the governor’s recommendation included general fund, dedicated fund, and federal fund reductions tied to agency holdbacks, long-term vacant positions, unallocated CEC, and school funding adjustments, and that the committee would be voting on which level of rescissions to adopt. He also identified agencies exempted or largely held harmless in the additional reduction scenarios, including public schools, Medicaid, corrections, and Idaho State Police, while noting the Secretary of State’s request to return $850,000 one-time through contract renegotiation. Members discussed why the committee was considering additional cuts despite revenue assumptions and a possible tax conformity bill, with co-chairs and others emphasizing uncertainty around conformity, revenue, and policy bills, and the need to right-size the budget with ongoing reductions rather than one-time fixes. Some members supported the process as a way to set clearer targets for work groups, while others expressed concern that broad cuts before agency hearings could create uncertainty and whipsaw agencies. Bybee also clarified that the Friday votes would include rescissions, cash transfers, and statewide decisions that would shape maintenance budgets and 2027 budget structure. The committee then reviewed a separate package of recommended cash transfers totaling about $106.7 million to help balance fiscal year 2026, including transfers from the In-Demand Careers Fund, Water Pollution Control Fund, Strategic Initiatives Fund, Idaho Opportunity Scholarship Fund, and Permanent Building Fund. Bybee said the transfers would be voted on individually and that the legislature has authority to move cash in the treasury for these purposes. Finally, the committee reviewed statewide decisions affecting all budgets, including personnel benefit cost increases, contract inflation, statewide cost allocation, military compensation CEC, and base budget reduction options. Members discussed options to fund health insurance increases at reduced levels based on fill rates, and Bybee explained that the Friday vote would set the base for maintenance budgets, with any later changes handled through supplements or enhancements. The meeting ended with plans to continue work group discussions and reconvene the next morning for additional agency presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• The main reason was the transfer law. It's too many girls transferred out.
• Well, how many transfers?
• Well, how many transfers?
• Can I transfer? Can we transfer? I said, yeah, you can. We don't want you to.
• Another transfer and transfer back if, you know, they just try to play that game.

Committee: Senate Education

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These transfers are often described as general fund transfers, payments in lieu of taxes, or franchise
• of some water revenues to the city's general funds—general fund transfers.
• Limiting even a portion of the general fund transfers could fund substantial improvements, such as faster
• Can all of those fees be transferred to the general fund at some portion of the enterprise funds within
• Relating to utility fund transfers, Houston is one of the only cities not doing these transfers, but

Committee: Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Summary: During the meeting, legislative members discussed the practice of municipalities diverting water and sewer revenues to their general funds, which impacts infrastructure maintenance and project delays. Vice Chair Sparks proposed limiting public testimony to two minutes, which was adopted without objection. The committee heard from various witnesses, including Perry Fowler from the Texas Water Infrastructure Network, who emphasized that utility revenues should primarily support water services and that transfers should be transparent and justified. He noted that many utilities face financial pressures that could hinder infrastructure projects. Larry French from the Texas Public Policy Foundation highlighted the significant financial impact of water loss and general fund transfers, estimating the annual loss at $1.5 billion. He argued that these transfers can create disincentives for municipalities to address water loss issues. Brian Butcher, Assistant City Manager of Sugar Land, defended the city's cost allocation model for general fund transfers, asserting that they are necessary for equitable service provision and operational efficiency. The committee also discussed the implications of rising construction costs and the need for better procurement processes to ensure effective use of taxpayer dollars. The second part of the meeting focused on the New World Screwworm and the state's preparedness to manage potential infestations. Dudley Hoskins from the USDA outlined the federal response efforts and the importance of collaboration with state agencies. He emphasized the need for ongoing surveillance and the production of sterile flies to combat the pest. Dr. Philip Kaufman from Texas A&M discussed the historical context of the screwworm and the challenges posed by its potential reintroduction, urging proactive management strategies among livestock producers. The committee acknowledged the need for increased resources and research to effectively address the threat of the screwworm.

Transcript Highlights:

• Transfer is one of the things that is most important to me personally as a student who transferred a
• Because the model is funded prospectively, the state estimated how many credentials, transfer, and other
• We need the supplemental funding, and we need to make sure we have a sustainable, durable future funding
• It's just transfer in general. Yeah, we're just working on that transfer.
• We need more funding for a Skills Development Fund, for JET, and for the True Program.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Higher Education met with a quorum, adopted its interim rules on a 6-0 vote, and heard opening remarks from members and staff introductions. The chair emphasized higher education’s role in workforce development and noted a Legislative Budget Board survey issue that was resolved after a community college initially did not respond because the survey was marked optional. The committee then focused on monitoring implementation of Senate Bill 37, which governs public higher education boards, curriculum review, faculty senates/councils, training for regents, and the ombudsman office. Testimony from Chancellor Brandon Creighton of Texas Tech, Commissioner Wynn Rosser, UNT Chancellor Michael Williams, and Ombudsman Brandon Simmons described how SB 37 is being implemented. They said boards now have stronger authority, faculty senates are advisory, and institutions are reviewing general education curricula and other programs for rigor, relevance, and workforce value. Rosser said the statewide advisory committee is reviewing the core curriculum and board training requirements are being administered, while Simmons reported the ombudsman office has received 73 complaints, opened two investigations, and expects a third, with many complaints outside its jurisdiction or harassing in nature. Members questioned witnesses about transfer credits, board training content, auditing, conflicts of interest, curriculum decisions, and whether any institutions were missing deadlines. Rosser said non-transferable credits have declined since reporting began under earlier law, and that the most common reason is courses outside degree requirements. Witnesses said they were not aware of institutions missing the SB 37 review deadlines. Senators also raised concerns about an appearance of impropriety in a Texas Tech-related matter and about whether a Dred Scott case should be taught in law school, with Creighton saying the curriculum review process did not prohibit teaching Supreme Court cases and that he would follow up. Later testimony from University of Houston, Texas State, UT, and Texas A&M system officials said their systems had updated policies, abolished prior faculty senates, created compliant advisory councils, and completed or were completing core curriculum reviews and related governance changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• DHL more funding to create their<00:33:31.919><c> own</c><00:33:32.640><c> internal</c><00:33:33.600
• That's great that the excess contribution will go to the Hawaii election campaign fund.
• Every time money is distributed to the Hawaii election campaign fund, it needs to be itemized.
• Money that is distributed<00:39:08.320><c> to</c><00:39:08.400><c> the</c><00:39:08.560><c> fund</c><
• to be distributed to the fund needs to be highly<00:39:09.680><c> monitored</c><00:39:10.240><c> by<

Bills: HR11 , HB1872 , HB2171 , HB2161 , HB2416 , HB2518 , HB2617 , HB2159 , HB2606 , HB2362 , HB2385 , HB2476 , HB1923 , HB2444 , HB1608 , HB1967 , HB1968 , HB2502 , HB1782 , HB2357 , HB2445 , HB1870 , HB1838 , HB2137 , HB2208 , HB2458 , HB1972 , HB2007 , HB2160 , HB2343 , HB2315 , HB2505 , HB1857 , HB469 , HB1452 , HB814 , HB1621 , HB1880 , HB1831 , HB1572 , HB2119 , HB2139 , HB2459 , HB2194 , HB2561 , HB2017 , HB1931 , HB1700 , HB1719 , HB1726 , HB1737 , HB1742 , HB2049 , HB2383 , HB2116 , HB2446 , HB2249 , HB2255 , HB2320 , HB2360 , HB2581 , HB2443 , HB1531 , HB2622 , HB9 , HB2290 , HB2291 , HB2235 , HB2263 , HB2498 , HB1579 , HB1728 , HB1900

Keywords: 808 Elite, youth football, American Youth Football National Championships, AYF, Hawaii football, youth athletics, sports recognition, commendation, House resolution, student-athletes, sportsmanship, teamwork, state pride, Hawaii youth sports, national championship, early learning, apprenticeship, child care, education funding, workforce development

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is the authority for OMB to make the transfer out of the oil fund.
• Why is it being transferred from one fund to another? Sure. I couldn't believe what I was reading.
• What are they, why is it being transferred from one fund to another? Sure. So, Mr.
• So it's kind of an accounting transfer where once this fund fills up, OMB makes the transfer. ...transfer
• Once this fund fills up, OMB makes the transfer, and then DHS can spend it.

Bills: SB2012

Committee: Senate Appropriations - Government Operations Division

Keywords: transportation, funding, infrastructure, grants, municipal, 908, all

Summary: The Government Operations division met to consider House Bill 1015, the OMB budget, with several amendments already in hand. A major portion of the discussion centered on Senator Mathern’s concerns about the proposed new state hospital in Jamestown. He argued the project is outdated, too expensive, and should be delayed or reduced in favor of local behavioral health services and deferred maintenance at the existing LaHogue facility. Other members questioned him about staffing, capacity, constitutional issues, and the relationship between the hospital proposal and broader mental health investments in other bills. The committee also reviewed budget mechanics, including the transfer of up to $240 million from the Social Services Fund to the Human Services Finance Fund, a $40 million deferred maintenance fund, a $3 million deficiency appropriation for the new and vacant FTE pool, and other OMB-related items. Members discussed whether OMB should have managerial control over the Jamestown project and generally agreed that OMB oversight could help manage costs, though concerns about the hospital remained. The committee then considered two funding items that drew the most debate: guardianship grants and a pro-life education campaign. After testimony from a representative supporting the campaign, members agreed to reduce that item by $500,000 and add $1 million for guardianship grants, while leaving the overall bill to be finalized in conference. The committee adopted Amendment Version 2006 with those changes and then passed HB 1015 as amended on a roll call vote, with all members voting aye except Senator Burckhard on the amendment vote; he later voted aye on the bill itself. The chair indicated the bill would move to conference committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are things that we have to fund regardless of how much state funding we get.
• versus growth fund.
• Funding in the current year.
• Without full funding, we are getting close, I think. funding to achieve those goals.
• Some of them may be using state funding. Some of them may be using local funding.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held an oversight hearing on the California State University system covering enrollment, core operations, Title IX/civil rights, and basic needs. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s 2026-27 budget does not change CSU enrollment targets from the prior year and proposes a 5% ongoing General Fund increase for core operations as the final year of the compact. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended a lower resident undergraduate enrollment target than the Governor’s proposal, separate funding for enrollment growth rather than folding it into base, a smaller or no base increase tied more closely to inflation, earmarking some base funds for capital renewal, retiring deferred payments, and avoiding new multi-year compact commitments. CSU said enrollment has rebounded for three straight years, but growth is uneven across campuses, with several Northern California campuses still facing structural declines tied to demographics and community college pipelines. CSU described a multi-year reallocation plan shifting about 10,000 FTE and $89 million in ongoing funding toward higher-demand campuses, plus $40 million in one-time support, and said seven campuses submitted turnaround plans aimed at recovering enrollment over the next several years. The system highlighted strategies such as dual enrollment, guaranteed admission pathways with community colleges, outreach to high school students, retention and advising efforts, and new degree models for working adults and military-connected students. Members raised questions about how campus targets are set, whether the May Board of Trustees discussion will address a systemwide enrollment framework, and how CSU will manage future deficits if projected out-year funding does not materialize. On core operations and facilities, CSU said it faces about $320 million in mandatory cost increases in 2026-27 and is pursuing shared services, procurement consolidation, campus administrative sharing, and program redesigns to reduce costs. CSU and the LAO emphasized the system’s large deferred maintenance backlog, estimated at $8.6 billion, and discussed whether CSU’s bond/debt capacity is sufficient to address it; CSU requested up to $1.1 billion for deferred maintenance, while the administration did not propose new funding. The committee also heard CSU’s annual Title IX and civil rights update: CSU said it has implemented 15 of 16 State Auditor recommendations, has dedicated Title IX coordinators at every campus, is using a systemwide case management dashboard, and is piloting centralized investigations at five campuses. Finally, on basic needs, the Governor maintained current funding levels for food assistance/basic needs, rapid rehousing, and mental health. CSU reported heavy use of food pantries, CalFresh support, emergency housing, and counseling services, while warning that federal changes to CalFresh and related funding could make it harder to serve students in need.

Transcript Highlights:

• transfer those wells to.
• And so when you're transferring it, you're not just transferring an asset; you're also transferring a
• But when they transfer it, they're not only transferring that production capacity; they're transferring
• The funding is there. The state changed where that funding goes.
• But with the conservation fund, do we have the funding?

Committee: House House Energy, Environment & Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a restricted reserve fund transfer request.
• This is a restricted reserve fund transfer request.
• This is Section F, appropriation and/or fund transfer requests.
• New to the report are transfers from the water and sewage treatment facilities grant program fund.
• And then K-8 is a Revenue Services Division Fund Appropriation Transfer Report.

Committee: All ALC-PEER

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's actually the transfer back to the rainy day fund.
• That's actually the transfer back to the rainy day fund.
• :07:51.119><c> that</c> transferring um from this fund into that transferring um from this fund into
• on utilities gets transferred to this fund.
• So, that gets transferred to this fund.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting began with approval of partial minutes, with members noting that DHS/HHS material was not yet included and that the minutes would be finalized later. The committee then heard from the General Court about several dedicated funds. Testimony explained the Joint Legislative Historical Fund, which receives a $25,000 annual general fund appropriation and transfers from visitor center sales above a $50,000 threshold, and is used for portrait maintenance, chamber work, Hall of Flags upkeep, and other historical preservation needs. Members also discussed the preservation of the Civil War flags in the Hall of Flags, with the General Court stating the flags are monitored through annual high-definition photos and that no immediate stabilization project is planned. A question about Union cemeteries was raised but the witness said he had no knowledge of federal funding for them. The committee also reviewed the visitor center revolving fund and noted that the accounting presentation is confusing because transfers are netted out so the fund ends each year at $50,000. Members suggested the narrative should clearly identify the transfer amounts and actual revenue, and staff agreed to note that in future reporting. The General Court then described its special legislative account as a stability reserve for capital and emergency needs, citing past uses such as the plaza ADA renovation, the legislative parking garage, and moving operations to One Granite Place. Members asked about interest earnings and were told the account is held in the treasury and any interest goes to the general fund unless statute directs otherwise; no additional funding was recommended at this time. The Department of Administrative Services then presented the law enforcement memorial fund, explaining it is a long-standing leftover construction fund with a small balance that has not been needed because the New Hampshire Law Enforcement Memorial Officers Association privately funds memorial upkeep and plaques. Members discussed whether the state should transfer the remaining money to the nonprofit, but no decision was made; the department said it would research whether such a transfer is legally possible. The department also reviewed the former land conservation endowment fund, now moving to Fish and Game under House Bill 2, and explained that it primarily covers administrative costs, management fees, and investment losses for a long-term conservation program. Members asked about the fund’s large balance and the increase in expenses, and were told the fund is intended to last indefinitely and that future reporting will shift to Fish and Game.