State presents FY26 "standstill" executive budget as multi‑year revenue shortfalls loom

House fiscal staff and officials from the Division of Administration presented the governor's FY26 executive budget as a "standstill" proposal that is balanced for the coming year but depends on revenue forecasts that project significant deficits in later years. Legislative members pressed administration officials about the size and sources of the projected gaps and how one‑time and recurring funds were treated in the proposal.

Shari Robinson of the House Fiscal Division told the panel the executive budget is based on the Revenue Estimating Conference's forecast and that the FY26 package as presented is balanced. Robinson and other budget staff differentiated "surplus" (nonrecurring) from "excess" (recurring) receipts, and listed the six constitutionally permitted uses for surplus funds. Robinson noted the FY24 surplus was about $595.1 million; 50% of that would be split between the Budget Stabilization Fund and payments on the unfunded accrued liability for retirement systems under the administration's plan.

Representative Cary Mack pushed on the long‑term outlook, saying that slide 6 showed large cumulative cuts ahead if no policy change is made: "you're talking about cutting a billion dollars out of the budget in just a few years? Okay. That's what I thought I saw," he said. Administration witnesses confirmed the projection pattern: while FY26 is shown balanced after removing one‑time items and tightening acquisitions and maintenance budgets, the continuation forecast used in legislative committee work shows shortfalls in FY27 and beyond.

Taylor Barra, Commissioner of Administration, said the executive proposal reflects the governor's decision to present a standstill budget that removes one‑time appropriations from prior years (including certain stipends and other nonrecurring items) and keeps the base funding level low so future additions would be carefully considered if revenues improve. Deputy Commissioner Patrick Goldsmith added that the executive budget contains no contingencies for the pending constitutional amendment and does not assume any future federal funding reductions: "There are no contingencies built into the budget, of course, assuming anything about the constitutional amendment. None of that is included, nor are any cuts that could be proposed at the federal level."

Budget staff also outlined the composition of the FY26 request: the proposed state budget was shown at about $49.4 billion, with the means of financing broken out on the slide as roughly 46% federal funding, 24.6% state general fund, 12.8% statutory dedications, 11.8% agency fees and self‑generated revenue and 4.7% interagency transfers. Robinson said the executive budget accounted for a roughly $194 million shortfall in the FY25–26 continuation by reducing acquisitions (about $100 million), not funding certain inflation adjustments and shifting some hurricane‑related expenses out of the current year.

Why this matters: the standstill approach keeps the FY26 base intact while highlighting choices lawmakers will face if the revenue picture does not improve: larger recurring expenditures added to the base would have to be paid for either with new revenue or deeper cuts later. Committee members asked for more detailed back‑up on department spending history, utilization factors that drive certain high‑cost programs (for example, corrections and juvenile justice), and clearer percent‑change labels on the slides cited during the hearing.

The administration noted several follow‑ups: staff will correct chart label errors spotted in committee and post updated slides, and lawmakers signaled plans to question agency heads during budget‑hearing days about program‑level assumptions and monthly actuals used to validate the FY26 line items. The Revenue Estimating Conference and Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget (JLCB) processes will continue to inform session decisions.

Ending: Lawmakers and administration officials agreed to return with more documentation, including month‑by‑month spending history and clarifications on the drivers of large increases and decreases, as the legislature moves toward appropriation decisions for FY26.