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:

• 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:

• 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:

• The current funding process allows lawmakers to allocate resources based on the evolving needs of Florida's
• We need additional funds to target proven researchers, facing Floridians.
• We need additional funds to target proven researchers and strategic areas like a healthy Florida, advancing
• We need additional funds to target proven researchers, facing Floridians.
• But they'd have no idea what the bar was that they needed to achieve in order to be eligible for funding

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education met to examine how Florida’s state universities are funded and to begin discussing a possible university funding model. The panel included the State University System chancellor and CFOs from FSU, UF, FAMU, FAU, UNF, and UCF. Members first reviewed major cost drivers, which the universities said are broadly similar across institutions: wages and benefits, equipment and supplies, financial aid, professional services, utilities, IT, and maintenance. Several institutions noted unique pressures from geography, growth, research intensity, and mission, such as UCF’s size and engineering focus, UF’s land-grant and research enterprise, FAMU’s need to recruit top talent while serving a high-Pell student population, and FSU’s large facilities and research obligations. The chancellor also summarized systemwide cost growth since 2012-13, including higher health insurance, retirement, and salary costs, while noting tuition had been held flat. The committee then discussed other revenue sources, including auxiliaries, restricted funds, capital projects, and component units such as foundations and health systems. University leaders explained that many of these funds are restricted to specific purposes, and some, like UF Health, account for a large share of operating expenses. Members also discussed the current performance-based funding process. University representatives generally praised it for transparency, accountability, and its focus on student success, but said the heavy use of one-time funds, nonrecurring appropriations, and unfunded mandates makes long-term planning difficult. FSU and others argued that rising employee costs, waivers, and facilities expenses are not fully covered, while FAMU said performance funding has improved outcomes but can disadvantage institutions serving more low-income students. In response to questions about improvements, the universities suggested more recurring and predictable funding, better coverage of mandated costs, more flexibility in fees, and continued investment in research and strategic priorities. The chancellor said the Board of Governors is considering a version 3.0 of performance funding that would benchmark institutions against peers and Carnegie classifications. The committee also explored whether universities should have more flexibility to set out-of-state tuition and professional school tuition. Most university leaders favored giving boards of trustees more authority, while the chancellor cautioned that increasing out-of-state enrollment or tuition too much could affect legislative support. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with the chair thanking the panel and adjourning the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• reporting that we need to do on those, so a number of our programs receive funding.
• funds.
• The state needs to provide funding to schools through Proposition 98.
• This resolves the funding, but GAAP gets us to the $22.8 million, I think it is, that we need.
• The need for this funding is... on question one.

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:

• 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:

• 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:

• 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:

• 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:

• 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:

• , and allow the legislature to withdraw funds periodically for critical state needs.
• Finally, the amendment allows the Legislature to withdraw funds from the BSF for critical state needs
• The amendment also allows the Legislature to withdraw funds for critical needs once the balance of the
• when needed as long as the withdrawal does not cause the fund balance to fall below 10% of revenue collections
• The amendment also allows the Legislature to withdraw funds for critical needs once the balance of the

Summary: The House met on the final day of session, swore in Representatives Boyles and Hodgers, and observed a moment of silence for the Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, as well as for Representative Rosenwald’s father. The chamber then moved into final budget work, with leaders outlining the plan to take up H.J.R. 5019, HB 7031, HB 5017, HB 5015, and then the general appropriations act once the Senate transmitted it. H.J.R. 5019, a proposed constitutional amendment to expand the budget stabilization fund, was explained and amended to raise the rainy day fund cap, require annual deposits, and allow withdrawals for critical state needs by a two-thirds vote; it passed 100-1. The House then adopted the conference report on HB 7031, the tax package. The bill repeals the business rent tax and aviation fuel tax, delays the natural gas fuel tax, creates or expands several sales tax holidays and exemptions, including permanent exemptions for disaster-preparedness items, hunting/fishing/camping items, and ammunition and firearms-related purchases, and makes changes to property, corporate income, local tax, and economic development provisions. Members debated the removal of recurring housing trust fund and transit-related revenue streams, the new ammunition exemption, and the data center tax changes; supporters argued the package reduces taxes and preserves annual budget flexibility, while opponents raised concerns about housing, transportation, and gun violence. The conference report passed 93-7. HB 5017, creating a debt reduction program funded by a recurring transfer to retire state bonds early, passed unanimously. HB 5015, the state group insurance conforming bill, which directs DMS to develop a formulary management plan and codifies the administrative health insurance assessment, also passed. The House then began explanation and questions on the fiscal year 2025-26 general appropriations act, described as a $115.1 billion budget that is down $3.8 billion from the current year and includes more than $12 billion in reserves. Subcommittee chairs summarized major spending areas, including pre-K-12 funding increases, health care funding for Medicaid, KidCare, nursing homes, opioid treatment, and mental health, transportation and economic development funding, environmental and water projects, higher education, state administration, justice, and information technology. Questions focused on school vouchers, inflationary pressures on school districts, and the adequacy of funding for housing, transportation, and other priorities.

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 reason for seeking funding through cell phones is we do need a steady funding mechanism for this.
• The reason for seeking funding through cell phones is we do need a steady funding mechanism for this.
• The reason for seeking funding through cell phones is we do need a steady funding mechanism for this.
• Um, and we need some sort of dedicated funding source for this.
• The reason for seeking funding through cell phones is we do need a steady funding mechanism for this.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> need, that there was enough funding need, that there was enough funding available,<00:18:45.040>
• So, for your first question, I would need to look into the fund, the $60 million that you're talking
• So, for your first question, I would need to look into the fund, the $60 million that you're talking
• So, for your first question, I would need to look into the fund, the $60 million that you're talking
• So, for your first question, I would need to look into the fund, the $60 million that you're talking

Summary: The committee first took up a public hearing and presentation on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Shannon Hall of the Department for Community Based Services and Rick Baker of Community Action Kentucky explained that LIHEAP is a 100% federally funded block grant that helps low-income households pay heating and cooling bills, avoid utility disconnects, and support weatherization. They outlined the program’s components, eligibility limits, seasonal application periods, and recent participation figures, including tens of thousands of households served through the summer cooling, fall subsidy, winter crisis, and spring subsidy components. They also described weatherization priorities, the partnership with Kentucky Housing Corporation, and the role of Community Action agencies in administering the program statewide. Members asked about Assurance 16, the balance between need and available funding, summer cooling assistance, weatherization measurement, renter versus homeowner participation, and whether federal changes could affect LIHEAP. Hall and Baker said Assurance 16 supports energy-burden reduction through education, case management, and conservation strategies; that funding has generally been sufficient in recent years but crisis funds have sometimes been exhausted quickly in the past; and that summer assistance is primarily electric utility support. They also said weatherization uses return-on-investment testing and that Kentucky still has a large backlog of homes needing service. On federal funding, they said the recently passed federal bill did not directly cut LIHEAP, but future appropriations could still affect it, and any major reduction could leave a gap the state might need to consider filling. The committee approved the minutes and later approved the LIHEAP finding of fact; no members of the public signed up to testify. After concluding LIHEAP, the committee heard a presentation from Heather Jeff of The Nature Conservancy on conservation opportunities in Kentucky. She described the organization’s voluntary land-protection work and highlighted the Cumberland Forest project, a conservation easement on about 55,000 acres in Bell, Knox, and Leslie counties supported in part by a $3.875 million state appropriation. She also reported on mine-land reforestation, elk habitat work, and the rapid allocation of a $2 million appropriation for the Kentucky Heritage Land Conservation Fund. Jeff emphasized the economic value of conservation for tourism, hunting and fishing, agriculture, forestry, bourbon, and flood protection, and said the group is finalizing a Kentucky conservation needs assessment and related feasibility research.

Transcript Highlights:

• The idea is that these types of funds really just say: does everyone have the support that they need
• To succeed, which includes having a well-funded basic needs center and food pantries, having access to
• We need to make sure state funding and state policy protects every student's right to learn, to feel
• Second, we need to fund Medi-Cal navigators at every single UC campus.
• I also ask that the state prioritize... ...the funding of basic needs resources.

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee held an oversight hearing on how federal actions are affecting California higher education, with opening remarks from the chair and members emphasizing the importance of state-federal shared governance and the need to protect access, affordability, and campus diversity. The first panel included leaders from the CSU, University of the Pacific, California Community Colleges, and UC, who described broad impacts from federal grant terminations, changes to student aid, loan limits, visa and immigration policy, and proposed reductions to research support. Testimony focused on the elimination of Grad PLUS loans, caps on Parent PLUS and Pell-related changes, the loss or suspension of hundreds of grants, and the resulting harm to student support services, research, workforce pipelines, food assistance, and health care training. UC and CSU representatives warned of major losses in research funding, indirect cost reimbursement, and student opportunities, while community college leaders highlighted uncertainty around federal grants and the need to maintain services for low-income, first-generation, undocumented, and other vulnerable students. Committee members asked how the state could respond, including through intersegmental partnerships, dual enrollment, transfer pathways, and support for basic needs and nutrition programs. Witnesses said California could help by sustaining financial aid, protecting minority-serving institution programs, and investing in research, housing, and workforce development. Several speakers stressed that federal changes were creating instability for students and campuses, and that the effects would likely be long-lasting, especially in health care, teaching, STEM, and social work pipelines. A second panel then focused on equitable access. The California Student Aid Commission described state efforts such as the $3.9 billion investment in aid programs, the Cal Grant system, the Dream Act, and possible reforms to better serve adult learners, foster youth, undocumented students, and students with dependents. The Los Angeles Community College District reported that federal cuts and policy shifts are discouraging students from applying for aid, threatening TRIO and MSI/HSI-funded services, and reducing support for basic needs, counseling, and workforce programs. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities and the CSU Academic Senate echoed concerns about FAFSA confusion, international student restrictions, grant losses, and the erosion of equity-focused programs. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and discussed possible state responses.

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:

• So our choice is to perpetuate a funding model that does not address the needs of the state, does not
• 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

Committee: House Higher Education and Workforce Development

Summary: The Committee on Higher Education and Workforce Development met in executive session and first took up House Bill 2585. The committee adopted a House Committee substitute and a separate amendment, both described as clerical and technical changes to align the bill with Department of Higher Education workflow and state and federal law. The substitute for HB 2585 was then approved do pass by a 10-0 roll call vote. The committee then held a public hearing on House Bill 1627, which would revise the Career and Technical Education Advisory Council by adding the Commissioner of Higher Education or designee, increasing business and commerce representation, shortening member terms, reducing required meetings, and adjusting reporting requirements. Representative Haley said the changes would better reflect workforce needs and strengthen ties between education and industry. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education testified in support, saying the changes were recommended by the advisory group. No opposition testimony was offered. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2123, a broader higher education funding proposal that also includes a Bright Flight scholarship increase to full in-state tuition. Representative Black and Representative Shields described the bill as an effort to modernize Missouri’s long-standing base-plus funding model by moving toward a metric- and performance-based system tied to workforce needs, with a phased testing and approval process before implementation. Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development staff, the Missouri Community College Association, and the Council on Public Higher Education testified in support of continuing the work, though the council urged removing bill language that was too specific about the consultant’s model and timeline. Some members raised concerns about fiscal impact, implementation, and whether the model could be rolled out without harming institutions or students. The hearing on HB 2123 concluded without any vote taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Like we don't need a perpetual lapsing of these funds.
• ><00:11:19.680><c> to</c><00:11:20.079><c> make</c> of these funds. um we do need to make of these funds
• and I need and if I have funding and I need something,<00:45:22.079><c> I'm</c><00:45:22.319><c> going
• So, we need funds to be able to do that as well.
• So, we need funds to be able to by 2027.

Committee: Senate Finance

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.