Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:05:04.160><c> to</c> invoice or request for reimbursement to invoice or request for reimbursement
• business with the state to have surety bonds, sometimes even fidelity bonds.
• have shity bonds, sometimes even fidelity<00:14:05.839><c> bonds.
• Fiscal agents reimbursement<00:57:01.119><c> reimbursement</c><00:57:01.760><c> on</c><00:57:01.920><
• c> a</c><00:57:02.079><c> more</c> reimbursement reimbursement on a more reimbursement reimbursement

Committee: House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:06:53.759><c> rates</c> are the the federal reimbursement rates are the the federal reimbursement
• </c> page five um these are the reimbursement page five um these are the reimbursement rates<00:09:06.079
• Thank you. provides the same reimbursement for any provides the same reimbursement for any type<00:20
• </c> the meals were then being um reimbursed the meals were then being um reimbursed at<00:28:55.120>
• that bond payment.

Summary: The Department of Education’s Bureau of Wellness and Nutrition presented an overview of the school meal and child nutrition programs it administers, including the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, and Special Milk Program. Staff explained which programs are federally funded through USDA, which have state matching funds, and how reimbursement rates are set for different programs and fiscal years. They also walked the committee through a packet showing reimbursement tables, state and federal funding totals, and eligibility data. Members focused much of their questioning on how state and federal reimbursements work for lunch and breakfast, why lunch is shown as a state match while breakfast has meal-based breakdowns, and how the department allocates funds in the budget. The department explained that lunch uses a set state match tied to federal requirements, while breakfast reimbursement is based on meals served. They also reviewed FY 22-24 funding trends, noting higher federal spending during COVID-era waivers and lower amounts as those waivers ended. A committee member asked for the data in Excel and the department agreed to provide it. The discussion also covered summer meal programs and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-run benefit program that provides funds to families; the two programs coordinate through data sharing but are not the same. Members also discussed CEP, with staff explaining that New Hampshire currently has three schools participating, that the qualifying threshold was reduced from 40% to 25% identified students, and that districts must cover the non-federal share with non-federal funds. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Sandy passing a bonding bill?
• </c><00:04:09.519><c> proposals</c> look at some of the bonding proposals look at some of the bonding
• </c> money would go into bonding this year. money would go into bonding this year.
• </c> &gt;&gt; Yes, it can because this is the bonding &gt;&gt; Yes, it can because this is the bonding
• </c> are, you know, there's um four bonding are, you know, there's um four bonding leads<00:09:06.320

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:31:27.720><c> provision</c> rewrite on the reimbursement provision rewrite on the reimbursement
• , reimbursement, reimbursement, judicial<00:39:03.280><c> security</c><00:39:03.960><c> expansion</c>
• </c> requested here eligible for bonding requested here eligible for bonding versus<01:03:41.080><c>
• The bonding request bonding request is.
• ,</c> clarity, what's left in the bonding, clarity, what's left in the bonding, that's<01:04:29.640><

Summary: The Safety and Security Conference Committee met on May 13, 2026, with a quorum present and no immediate vote taken. Chairs explained the committee was working ahead of a possible target so it could act quickly later if needed, then proceeded with member introductions and a reminder about committee decorum. Staff noted a microphone delay and said the meeting would include a side-by-side walk-through of the House and Senate policy language and a review of the fiscal spreadsheet. Fiscal staff summarized major differences in court, public safety, and legislative security funding. The House and Senate proposals differed on safety and security funding for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and District Courts, as well as on courthouse grants, capital security enhancements, and a new legislative/protective services unit. Staff also reviewed Senate-only and House-only items, including a Senate proposal to require removal of insignia from public safety vehicles sold to the public, and House provisions for a security services task force and member security costs. Total general fund impacts were reviewed, with the House total corrected to include an open appropriation that had been omitted from the spreadsheet totals. Nonpartisan staff then walked through the policy differences. The Senate language focused on a Protective Services Unit and security for principal state officials, while the House language focused on a Legislative Services Unit and security for legislators. Both bills included provisions on Capitol Complex Security, reporting requirements, and reimbursement arrangements with local law enforcement, but differed on details such as whether elected officials must provide contact information to DPS and how requests for personal protective services are handled. The House-only amendment A8 was presented for discussion; it would revise emergency contact provisions, replace the House’s personal protective services request language with a more detailed threat assessment and mitigation framework, direct implementation of the new unit, and make related reimbursement and technical changes. Judge Richard Kyle, president of the Minnesota District Judges Association, testified in support of stronger judicial and court safety measures. He described rising threats against judges, citing survey results showing high rates of judges limiting personal information, receiving inappropriate communications, changing personal behavior, and experiencing threats to themselves and family members. He said the association supports legislative authorization and funding for home security and personal data protections for judicial officers, and emphasized that safety concerns for judges and court staff have become more serious in recent years.

Transcript Highlights:

• But giving the AG direct access to the bond will drive the price of that bond through the roof.
• So you said that you had a problem with increasing the surety bond.
• But the $25,000 bond right now, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but according to the bond companies
• of new claims coming in, and that drives the price of the bond up.
• increases the cost on those bonds, I’d appreciate it.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure

Summary: The Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure heard testimony on a wide range of bills involving consumer protection, auto regulation, alcohol licenses, and professional licensure. A major focus was legislation to require a one-hour domestic violence awareness training for salon and cosmetology licensees (H.323/S.200), supported by District Attorney Marion Ryan, law enforcement, and a salon industry witness who described the program’s value in identifying and helping victims. The committee also heard strong support from the Attorney General’s office for auto consumer protection legislation (S.228/H.379) that would expand used-car warranty protections, extend the Lemon Law return period to seven days after receipt of the vehicle, raise the mileage cap to 200,000 miles, and increase dealer surety bonds to $50,000. Independent dealers opposed those changes, arguing they would burden small businesses and that dealer education, not expanded liability, was the better solution. The committee also took testimony on bills related to vehicle financial products and repair information. A trade association supported GAP waiver legislation (H.4188/S.281), saying it would create clear consumer protections and standard disclosures. On right-to-repair and heavy-duty vehicle service information (S.266), engine and truck manufacturers supported an exemption for commercial vehicles, while others argued that releasing service data to the general public could create safety, cybersecurity, and emissions risks. The committee then heard extensive testimony on auto dealer franchise and warranty reimbursement legislation (S.201/H.406), with dealer groups supporting changes to warranty labor reimbursement and manufacturer groups opposing them as costly and unnecessary. Manufacturers from GM, Volvo, Toyota, Hyundai, Mazda, and others said their current time-study and appeals processes already compensate dealers fairly and that the bill would raise costs for consumers. In addition, the committee heard testimony on H.333, which would move auto damage appraiser licensing from the Division of Insurance to the Division of Occupational Licensure. Collision repair advocates supported the change, saying the current board structure leads to repeated dismissals of complaints and lacks accountability, while emphasizing that the bill is intended to protect consumers and ensure proper repair reimbursement. The hearing also included testimony in support of a local alcohol license petition for Westwood and a separate local alcohol measure for a town grant license. At the end of the hearing, the chairs announced that all docketed bills had been heard, noted that a joint poll would be held on H.4184, and the committee voted to adjourn by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:06:53.759><c> rates</c> are the the federal reimbursement rates are the the federal reimbursement
• </c> page five um these are the reimbursement page five um these are the reimbursement rates<00:09:06.079
• Those are the reimbursement rates.
• rate—there's a column for federal reimbursement rate, there's a column for State reimbursement rate,
• that bond payment.

Summary: The Finance Committee Division II met with the New Hampshire Department of Education to review school nutrition programs and related funding. Department staff Melissa White and Kelly Rambo walked through a packet covering the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program, explaining that these are federally funded USDA programs, with some state supplemental funding in certain areas. They also reviewed reimbursement rates for lunch, breakfast, child/adult care, and summer meals, noting that summer rates follow calendar-year timing while most others follow the state fiscal year. Members asked several questions about how the funding works, especially the difference between federal reimbursements and the state match. Staff explained that the state lunch line in the budget is a fixed match amount tied to federal participation, while breakfast funding is broken out by meal type and reimbursement category. They also discussed why FY 2022 federal spending was much higher during COVID, when USDA covered meals at the free rate for all students, and why FY 2023 and FY 2024 dropped as normal income-eligibility rules returned. A committee member also asked about the “severe need lunch” two-cent rate, and staff said they did not know USDA’s formula. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on summer meals and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved sites, which can be open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-operated benefit program that provides funds to families. They said some schools or sites may not qualify under USDA rules, but eligible children can often use another nearby open site, and the department posts an interactive map and phone line to help families find locations. The committee also discussed the Community Eligibility Provision. Staff said New Hampshire currently has three CEP schools, that the eligibility threshold had recently been lowered from 40% to 25% identified students, and that the program allows participating schools to offer free meals to all students while the local district covers the non-federal share. Members asked whether any districts in the 25% to 40% range had joined; staff said no. The department offered to provide the eligibility report in Excel and noted that the CEP intent is to reduce application burden, though the lower threshold can make the local cost share harder for some districts to absorb.

Transcript Highlights:

• So there is a stream of revenue that will be paying these bonds, similar to revenue bonds.
• Um, it also tells how the State Bond Commission will issue the system restoration bonds and how the bonds
• Um, it also tells how the State Bond Commission will issue the system restoration bonds and how the bonds
• State Bond Commission will issue the system restoration bonds and how the bonds will be serviced through
• . bonds. bonds.

Transcript Highlights:

• It wasn't reimbursement number that you would ask. Thank you.
• This $759 million is what the state of Arizona is asking to be reimbursed.
• . ...to be used on border-related expenses and reimbursements.
• funded and issuing the bonds?
• But it sounds to me that your proposal is to do all of that through bonding. Mr.

Summary: The committee met to review the governor’s fiscal 2027 budget presentation, with the chair repeatedly asking members to keep questions brief and avoid speeches. The discussion focused first on the overall revenue and spending outlook, including concerns from members that the executive forecast was more optimistic than the JLBC baseline and that the budget appeared to front-load revenue and expenditure growth. The governor’s budget team said the forecast was close to JLBC’s, that the budget was structurally balanced, and that differences were roughly $100 million per year on ongoing revenue. Members asked for follow-up calculations in writing, including the total multi-year gap and the amount of revenue enhancements above base revenues. A major portion of the meeting centered on tax and fee proposals tied to data centers, water use, and sports betting. The governor’s team defended eliminating the existing data center tax incentive as the removal of a loophole rather than a new tax, arguing the incentive had already succeeded in attracting major investment. They also described a proposed Department of Water Resources fee-setting authority for data centers to support a new Colorado River Protection Fund, and said the proposal would apply to existing and future facilities without a grandfather clause. Members raised concerns about fairness, competitiveness, and whether the changes would require a supermajority vote. The team also discussed increased sports betting fees, saying the revenue forecast did not include dynamic behavioral effects. The committee then moved through major spending areas, including corrections, public safety, border security, cybersecurity, K-12 education, Medicaid, and developmental disabilities. The governor’s budget includes ongoing funding to prevent correctional officer pay cuts, money to comply with prison health care court orders, probation funding, body-worn cameras, law enforcement staffing, fentanyl task forces, and cyber readiness grants. Members questioned the lack of funding for a prison oversight committee and asked for corrections spending totals over the administration. On border security, the executive said it was seeking about $759.7 million in federal reimbursement for border-related costs and that the governor had met with federal officials, including Secretary Noem and Tom Homan, about the request. In education, the budget proposes renewing Prop. 123, adding K-12 base funding, and issuing $1.5 billion in school facilities bonds over three years; members debated whether the proposal was appropriate and whether Prop. 123 revenues could support the debt service. The meeting also covered AHCCCS cost growth and federal HR1 impacts, with the executive warning of major coverage losses and hospital funding reductions, and DDD funding, where the governor’s team said the budget fully funds services and includes about $120 million in supplemental needs. No votes were taken; the meeting was a presentation and question-and-answer session only.

Transcript Highlights:

• bonds and housing infrastructure bonds<00:05:13.960><c> debt</c><00:05:14.200><c> service</c><00:05:
• There's no reason we should be paying 50% more on bonds than the actual principal of the bonds to begin
• There's no reason we should be paying 50% more on bonds than the actual principal of the bonds to begin
• There's no reason we should be paying 50% more on bonds than the actual principal of the bonds to begin
• </c><01:14:51.040><c> fund</c> line for reimbursement fund line for reimbursement fund appropriation.

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• They're all new programs within the bond.
• They're all new programs within the bond.
• Can you give us examples of non-eligible costs for FEMA reimbursement?
• Can you give us examples of non-eligible costs for FEMA reimbursement?
• And so FEMA will only do a partial reimbursement for those.

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations on the administration’s Proposition 4 spending plans for extreme heat mitigation and outdoor access, then took up SB 54 implementation, SB 707 textile producer responsibility, and recovery needs related to the Los Angeles fires at state parks. For the extreme heat chapter, agencies described funding for the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program, urban greening, urban forestry, fairground upgrades, and technical assistance for community-based climate programs. Witnesses emphasized that these are existing programs with strong demand, that technical assistance is important for reaching disadvantaged and tribal communities, and that the proposed funding would expand outreach and implementation capacity. Members asked for more detail on where funds have gone geographically, examples of successful projects, tree-planting totals, and how fairgrounds could better support fire staging and emergency preparedness. The LAO said the timing of the administration’s proposed funding generally made sense because the programs are already established, and no votes were taken. For outdoor access, State Parks, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources described funding for new parks in underserved communities, deferred maintenance, state lands access, and several new or pending programs. State Parks said the park development program would fund roughly 48 projects and that deferred maintenance funding would address high-priority health, safety, and access needs. Fish and Wildlife said its lands program would improve visitor amenities and access on properties that often lack basic facilities. The Natural Resources Agency also outlined three newer outdoor-access proposals: expanding recreation in disadvantaged communities, enhancing natural resource values and trail access, and a nature/climate/education facilities grant program. The LAO distinguished between existing programs, which are ready to move forward, and the newer proposals, where the Legislature may want more input before funds are allocated. Members also raised concerns about park police vacancies, the need to track outcomes for accessibility investments, and whether Prop. 4 could help with wildfire-related recovery at state parks. CalRecycle then presented on SB 54, the plastics and packaging producer responsibility law, and members pressed hard on the delay in regulations. CalRecycle said it has held workshops, formed an advisory committee, selected the producer responsibility organization, and completed required baseline and covered-material reports, but needs more time to address complex comments and novel features such as source reduction and eco-modulated fees. Members expressed frustration that a statutory deadline was missed and asked for a concrete timeline; CalRecycle said it expects regulations in place by 2026, ahead of the PRO’s January 1, 2027 plan deadline. Finance said the Beverage Container Recycling Fund is currently healthy enough to support short-term loans for implementation. The committee also reviewed SB 707, the textile EPR law, which would create the nation’s first textile producer responsibility program; staff said the proposal would add positions and loan authority, and members noted the statutory deadlines for PRO approval, needs assessment, and later regulations. The hearing ended with discussion of the January Los Angeles fires’ damage to Topanga State Park and Will Rogers State Historic Park, where State Parks described extensive losses, emergency response work, and ongoing damage assessment. Members asked about FEMA eligibility, state funding sources, and community engagement in rebuilding, and the department said it is still assessing costs and will work with the public on reimagining the parks.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we have bond issues that come up.
• But I think, you know, it goes beyond bonding, right? You know, I... ...beyond bonding, right?
• The costs incurred at the local level would be reimbursed.
• The costs incurred at the local level would be reimbursed.
• Incurred at the local level would be reimbursed.

Summary: The subcommittee met with a quorum, approved the prior minutes, and focused primarily on property tax statement issues tied to the primary residence credit and the 5% early-payment discount. North Dakota Association of Counties representatives said the current special-session language creates problems because the discount is being applied even when no taxes are ultimately owed, and because the discount is calculated before the PRC funds are actually received. They recommended reverting to the prior law so the discount is applied after the PRC, and noted that all four programmers said they could revert the software to the earlier version if needed. The committee also reviewed a bill draft to remove the legislative tax relief line item from the required contents of the property tax statement. Members agreed the current line item is not especially accurate or useful on the statement, and several members said the committee should go further by adding clearer taxpayer education, such as a pie chart or other supplemental breakdown of where property taxes go. County officials said some counties already provide supplemental charts or explanatory material, but others would need help with printing, mailing, or formatting. To support that idea, staff presented a second bill draft creating a grant program, administered through the Association of Counties with OMB as a pass-through, to reimburse counties for supplemental property tax statement information and related administration. After discussion, the committee voted unanimously to combine the two bill drafts into one recommendation and forward it to the full Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee. The subcommittee then voted to adjourn after directing staff to prepare its summary and recommended bill draft for the interim report.

Transcript Highlights:

• But our first presentation today will be Department of Military Affairs presentation, bond requests value
• Today will be Department of Military Affairs presentation, bond requests value, state tuition benefits
• She's going to talk a little bit today afterward and going through the bonding bill about her benefit
• that she's received through some of our state tuition reimbursement, which team generously allocates
• Boehner on the bonding proposal specifically? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Summary: The Minnesota Senate Subcommittee on Veterans heard a Department of Military Affairs presentation on bonding, tuition benefits, and cyber response. The department requested $3.5 million in design funding for a new hangar at the 148th Fighter Wing in Duluth, citing safety problems with the aging 1950s-era hangars and the need to improve the wing’s competitiveness for future federal military construction funding. It also sought $2.5 million for asset preservation at Army facilities statewide, emphasizing that state dollars are often matched by federal funds. A National Guard lieutenant also testified about the State Tuition Reimbursement Program, describing how it helped pay for her undergraduate and doctoral education and reduce student debt. The committee also received an update on Minnesota National Guard cyber operations, including the response to the July 2025 ransomware attack on the City of Saint Paul. Testimony described the cyber coordination cell’s role in planning, interagency coordination, and support during the incident, including helping re-image about 500 computers and assisting with network recovery. Members heard that the Guard’s cyber teams conduct extensive partner engagement and are prepared to support state and local entities when civil resources are exhausted and the incident exceeds local capacity. Three bills were then heard and advanced. Senate File 4075, as amended, would implement recommendations from the task force on Special Guerrilla Unit and regular forces veterans from the Secret War in Laos, including eligibility and benefit changes; the committee adopted an amendment and passed the bill to the full committee. Senate File 3956, as amended, would clarify that the Department of Veterans Affairs may partner with veteran-serving organizations using nonmonetary resources to address food insecurity, homelessness, and suicide prevention; it was also referred onward. Senate File 4056, as amended, would add veteran or military status as a protected class under the Minnesota Human Rights Act; testimony supported the change, including concerns about service members losing educational opportunities while on state active duty, and the bill was passed to the full committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• This budget does not rely on new bond authority.
• It does rely on the existing bond authority, but is bonding a little bit less in this biennium because
• , no new bond authority.
• authority no new new is the utilization of our existing bond authority, no new bond authority.
• You will not see a proposal on in this budget that relies on that bonding.

Bills: HB2306 , HB2711

Committee: House Transportation

Keywords: transportation budget, capital budget, operating budget, appropriations, Washington State Department of Transportation, WSDOT, Washington State Patrol, Department of Licensing, ferry funding, state ferries, highway maintenance, road preservation, bridge replacement, tolling, express toll lanes, traffic safety, speed cameras, ignition interlock, transit grants, public transit

Transcript Highlights:

• The second is the bond portion of the proposition. Proposition 1 authorized a $6.4 billion bond.
• Prior to the bond, this program was originally allocated $2.2 billion.
• So I'm going to quickly move into the bond.
• With the bond, we have $8 billion in applications to award $3 billion.
• Time to receive that reimbursement.

Transcript Highlights:

• This budget does not rely on new bond authority.
• It does rely on the existing bond authority, but is bonding a little bit less in this biennium because
• , no new bond authority.
• authority no new new is the utilization of our existing bond authority, no new bond authority.
• You will not see a proposal on in this budget that relies on that bonding.

Summary: The House Transportation Committee held public hearings on a proposed substitute for House Bill 2306, the 2026 transportation supplemental budget, and on proposed substitute House Bill 2711, a transportation resources bill. Staff described HB 2306 as revising the enacted 2025-27 transportation budget, increasing spending by about $1.1 billion to $16.5 billion, largely through reappropriations and new funding for preservation, maintenance, rail, transit, active transportation, ferries, licensing, and State Patrol needs. The chair and ranking member emphasized caution because of downward revenue forecasts, uncertainty around major project bids and future fish passage costs, and the decision to use existing bond authority without new bonding. Public testimony on HB 2306 generally supported preservation, maintenance, rail improvements, dredging, transit access, and local safety projects, while some witnesses urged more support for EV incentives and long-term transportation funding stability. For HB 2711, staff explained that the bill responds to administrative issues in last year’s transportation resources law, including fuel tax inflation adjustments, luxury vehicle/aircraft/vessel taxes, the indigent tow reimbursement program, tire fee language, and other tax administration provisions. The proposed substitute would repeal the luxury aircraft tax, adjust peer-to-peer rental car tax administration, restore authority for the Transportation Commission to exempt transit buses from tolls, waive certain penalties and interest tied to early compliance with the luxury vehicle tax, allow lease payments to be taxed incrementally, add exemptions for tribal members and nonresidents, change transfer timing between accounts, and create a Preserve Washington Account for highway preservation and maintenance. Fiscal notes projected additional revenue from aligning use tax with sales tax and modest administrative costs, while delaying the tow reimbursement program reduced near-term expenditures. Testimony on HB 2711 was mixed. RV dealers asked for a delay to the luxury vehicle tax, arguing the industry is already in decline and the tax could push sales out of state. WFSE supported the new Preserve Washington Account and urged higher bid limits for highway maintenance work. Committee members asked for clarification on the peer-to-peer rental car tax and the transit bus toll exemption. The chair announced that executive session on the bills, along with one other measure, would occur Wednesday, and members were told to submit amendment requests by the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• The free or reduced reimbursement rates that you're likely familiar with.
• at the free federal. reimbursement rate, and the remaining 20% of students will be reimbursed by the
• About 30 percent are from severance tax bonds, $1.3 billion.
• in severance tax bonds are considered authorized but unissued.
• And get the project done and get it reimbursed.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:03:17.519><c> would</c> consistent large bonding bills would consistent large bonding bills would
• </c> how much money would go into bonding how much money would go into bonding this<00:06:02.639><c>
• &gt;&gt; Yes, it can because this is the bonding &gt;&gt; Yes, it can because this is the bonding year
• </c> actually because most of our bonding actually because most of our bonding bills<00:10:19.040><c>
• </c> hurt us in terms of passing bonding hurt us in terms of passing bonding bills.<00:10:48.320><c>

Transcript Highlights:

• Before this new language, what was the purpose of the ad valorem reimbursement fund?
• Then, we will reimburse that ad valorem taxes over a two-year period. Questions?
• Of adjusting it not being a 100% reimbursement, maybe more like a 50% reimbursement to the school districts
• He received no financial reimbursement there until state aid kicked in.
• State and federal funds have nothing to do with your capacity to bond.

Bills: HB3044 , HB3465 , HB3625 , HB3704 , HB3759 , HB3920 , HB3972 , HB4191 , HB4311 , HB4426

Committee: Senate Revenue and Taxation

Keywords: veterans, tax refund, Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs, capital improvement, donations, Oklahoma Emission Reduction, incentive, taxation, environment, revenue, investment, school funds, treasurer, education funding, financial policy, income tax, scholarship, tax credit, Oklahoma Tax Commission, school funding

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, it wasn't reimbursement number that you would ask. Thank you.
• This $759 million is what the state of Arizona is asking to be reimbursed.
• funded and issuing the bonds?
• But it sounds to me that your proposal is to do all of that through bonding. Mr.
• I wasn’t looking... public very frustrated with about half the bonds approved and half the bonds not

Summary: The joint House-Senate appropriations committee met to review the governor’s fiscal 2027 budget presentation from Ben Henderson, director of the Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting. Early discussion focused on the state economy and revenue outlook, with Henderson describing strong GDP growth and low unemployment but also fragility for working families. Members questioned the executive’s revenue assumptions, which were said to be about $100 million per year higher than the JLBC baseline, and the committee chair asked for a written comparison of the revenue differences. Henderson also said the governor’s budget is structurally balanced and includes both ongoing spending and proposed revenue changes. A major portion of the hearing centered on data centers, AI investment, and water policy. Henderson argued Arizona’s data center tax incentive should be eliminated because it had already succeeded in attracting investment, while lawmakers questioned whether repealing the incentive and imposing a new water-related fee would discourage future growth. The executive said the water proposal would create a Colorado River Protection Fund and give the Department of Water Resources fee-setting authority, with the aim of encouraging more modern air-cooled facilities. Members also raised concerns about whether the data center changes would require a supermajority vote and whether the fee was effectively a new tax. The committee then reviewed major “critical spending” items, including correctional officer pay, prison health care compliance, probation funding, body-worn cameras, law enforcement staffing, fentanyl enforcement, cyber readiness, and border-related costs. Henderson said the budget includes $24.4 million ongoing for correctional officer pay and $118.3 million one-time for prison health care staffing, plus other public safety and homeland security items. He also defended the governor’s assumption of $759.7 million in federal reimbursement for border expenses, saying the governor had met with federal officials and that the state would seek the full amount. Members expressed skepticism about relying on that reimbursement and asked what would be cut if it does not materialize. Education and health and human services were also discussed. The governor’s budget includes K-12 funding, Prop. 123-related school facility bonding, and a proposal to shift some school facilities funding to bond financing, which several members criticized as inappropriate for short-term maintenance needs. The committee also reviewed AHCCCS/Medicaid costs, Division of Developmental Disabilities funding, and the expected impacts of federal HR1 changes on eligibility, provider funding, and rural hospitals. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair repeatedly limited debate and directed members to keep questions brief while the presentation continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:01:33.039><c> reimbursable</c><01:01:33.680><c> General</c> obligation bonds reimbursable General
• obligation bonds reimbursable General obligation<01:01:34.559><c> bonds</c><01:01:35.440><c> uh</c><
• </c> does it count do these reimbursable does it count do these reimbursable bonds<01:01:48.039><c> count
• Bond cap aside, if they're reimbursable or not, I think there is a fear that the state's credit rating
• , the state's bond rating, might be affected if we start issuing large bonds even though they're reimbursable