Assembly budget hearing yields widespread appeals to restore funding for colleges, social services and housing

Chairwoman Pintermarin convened a long day of testimony in Trenton, where leaders across higher education, human services, housing, health care and local government pressed the Assembly Budget Committee to reverse or soften proposed FY2026 cuts.

Speakers included college presidents and students from New Jersey’s 18 community colleges, nonprofit executives representing programs for children, domestic‑violence survivors, tutors, legal services and more, long‑term care operators and advocates, affordable‑housing developers and local school and municipal officials. Each urged lawmakers to protect or restore specific line items, warn of service losses if funding is reduced, and propose alternative revenue or spending choices.

Community colleges: presidents, students and the New Jersey Council of County Colleges warned cuts to operating aid and student supports would reduce access and push up costs for students. Maria Heitkamp, chief innovation and policy officer for the New Jersey Council of County Colleges, told the committee the system educates roughly 240,000 students annually and asked lawmakers to restore the $20 million and other student aid the administration proposed to cut. Several college presidents described local workforce dependencies—nursing, radiography, manufacturing—and said reductions could force program curtailments, staffing losses and higher tuition.

Nonprofit and human‑services pleas: leaders from CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates), Legal Services of New Jersey, the New Jersey Tutoring Corps, and other nonprofit service providers asked the committee to restore program appropriations they said were cut or at risk. CASA’s speaker described an appropriation cut that, she said, would halve services to abused and neglected children; Legal Services warned a 24% proposed reduction would shrink eviction‑prevention and family law services. Tutoring and youth workforce programs asked for specific line‑item restorations to preserve literacy and drop‑out prevention efforts.

Long‑term care, home care and private‑duty nursing: nursing‑home and assisted‑living representatives, medical adult‑day programs and private‑duty nursing providers said proposed Medicaid reimbursement changes and looming federal uncertainty would destabilize care for older and medically fragile residents. John Yandike of the Health Care Association of New Jersey described a proposed net reduction in nursing‑home funding and asked the legislature to restore the amount the administration proposed cutting. Providers and family representatives said low rates make it impossible to compete for staff, and that missed shifts in private‑duty nursing threaten medically fragile children’s ability to remain at home.

Affordable housing trust fund: developers and community development corporations—including the Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey and multiple county Habitat for Humanity affiliates—pressed the committee to prevent diversion of Affordable Housing Trust Fund dollars to other purposes. Witnesses said the governor’s proposal to redirect substantial portions of the Trust Fund (they cited down‑payment assistance and rental subsidies) would leave few resources to fund under‑80% AMI (area median income) projects needed to meet “round 4” Mount Laurel obligations and other local plans. Testimony included examples of local projects that rely on Trust Fund awards and warnings that draining the fund would halt planned construction.

K‑12 funding and school formula concerns: several local superintendents and school board members described sharp swings in state aid tied to the funding formula’s local fair‑share calculation and urged relief. Jefferson Township and Monroe Township officials identified sudden local fair‑share changes or lack of equalization aid as causes of multi‑million dollar shortfalls; Monroe’s board and residents asked the legislature to address the formula’s treatment of communities with large senior populations and for targeted help to support full‑day kindergarten in districts that lack capacity.

Business and tax debate: chambers and business groups urged careful fiscal choices. Some testified against tax increases proposed in the FY2026 package (internet gaming, truck excise, expanded sales‑tax base), warning of negative impacts on jobs and investment. Others urged using the state surplus for near‑term relief rather than broad new taxes; outside groups urged raising progressive revenue in other ways (targeting high incomes, corporate profits) to preserve services.

Why it matters: witnesses repeatedly tied budget choices to concrete risks—program closures, fewer surgeries, lost classrooms, delayed housing, and service reductions for veterans, students, families and vulnerable residents. Many speakers warned that federal funding uncertainty and higher operating costs (wages, insurance, utilities) make the state’s choices in FY2026 especially consequential.

What lawmakers said: committee members asked detailed questions about where cuts would land, alternatives for preserving services, and whether surplus or one‑time funds could bridge gaps. Several lawmakers flagged the need to balance protecting a substantial surplus with responding to immediate human‑service needs.

Where testimony pointed: across sectors the most common asks were (a) restore targeted appropriations eliminated or reduced in the governor’s FY2026 proposal, (b) protect the Affordable Housing Trust Fund from transfers to other programs, (c) raise reimbursement and wage supports for long‑term and home care to address staffing shortages, and (d) fix or clarify administration of the school‑funding formula so districts facing abrupt aid changes can plan.

Next steps: the committee will continue the negotiated budget process, reviewing agency briefings, written submissions and the details witnesses provided. Several speakers asked lawmakers to move quickly to restore or re‑target funds before agency grant cycles and the start of fiscal year operations.

Ending: Testimony underscored two recurring points: many services at stake are delivered by nonprofits or local governments and are highly dependent on state appropriations, and federal funding uncertainty makes state decisions this calendar year disproportionately important. The committee’s decisions in the next weeks will determine whether those services are preserved, scaled back, or restructured.