Lawmakers plan to vote on the budget proposal Monday, they said, and send it to Governor Maura Healey. She will then have 10 days to review the bill. State law affords Healey the ability to veto specific items or sections, or return certain provisions with amendments.

In the meantime, state government won’t shut down. Healey has put forward a temporary spending bill that lawmakers are expected to pass as a stopgap while the governor reviews the year-long budget.

The nearly $62 billion proposal that House and Senate leaders negotiated will be, by most accounts, the most important piece of legislation to pass on Beacon Hill this year. It dictates how an array of state and quasi-public agencies are funded, spreads millions of dollars in earmarks to towns, cities, and projects, and often carries weighty policy implications.

The proposals represent a roughly 6 percent increase in state spending over the version Healey signed last summer.

Both versions of the budget, however, had spending differences.

The House, for example, carved out $187 million more more in funding for the cash-starved MBTA than the Senate did, while the Senate dedicated more money than the House for areas like education or housing, according to budget watchdog Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

The business-backed non-profit also said that the revenue estimates lawmakers used to build their budget may be overly generous, arguing that tax revenue may come in at least $600 million below what state officials’ projected for the July through June 2026 fiscal year based on current trends.

And that $600 million downgrade, MTF officials said, doesn’t even account for potential impacts of the Trump administration’s trade policies or the chance of an economic downturn. Accounting for those, the foundation wrote in a brief released Wednesday, “would likely result in a downgrade [of] over $1 billion.”

Just Friday, the Healey administration announced that the Trump administration cut more than $45 million in funding for to land conservation efforts across state, and cancelled a $25 million grant to Mass Audubon to protect forests and wetlands along the Connecticut River.

The state has so far been beating its revenue estimates this year. But that’s been fueled by revenue generated by the state’s surtax on wealthy residents and capital gains. They are both buckets of cash that state officials largely can’t use to balance the budget as a whole.

Whether a recession may hit the state or the country is also unclear. But budget-watchers have been warning lawmakers for months that they should dramatically pare back their spending plans and revenue projections. If tax revenue or federal help crumble, opening a hole in the budget, the decisions about what programs to cut could fall squarely on Healey to make.

The House and Senate’s roughly $61.5 billion proposals both seek to spend about $500 million less than what Healey proposed in January. But either version would push spending up 6.4 percent over the budget Healey signed last year, adding to an explosion in state spending since the time shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The fate of several major policy initiatives also hangs in the balance.

The Senate, for example, attached a rider to its budget plan that would give local officials, not lawmakers on Beacon Hill, the power to determine the number of liquor licenses distributed in their city or town.

For decades, local officials have needed legislative approval to issue liquor licenses to restaurants and other businesses beyond a certain cap set in law, forcing them to navigate Beacon Hill’s sluggish home-rule petition process.

The Senate-passed proposal, which also sought to bar the transfer of liquor licenses between establishments, offered a potential sea change. It also faced immediate resistance in the House, where Majority Leader Michael Moran compared ceding legislative approval over the licenses to “political recklessness.”

The Senate’s budget also sought to make the state’s regional transit authorities fare-free, tucking in language banning them from charging passengers for rides while dedicating $40 million in revenue from the state’s surtax on wealthy residents to cover the costs. (The language was not in the House’s version.)

The House, meanwhile, moved to block a proposed change to lottery admissions for the state’s popular trade high schools, instead proposing to create a task force to make recommendations on admissions policies. (The Senate did not include that in its own plan.)

Both chambers included proposals they said would help protect renters from paying hefty broker’s fees, charges that typically amount to a month’s rent and which renters in virtually every other major American urban center are not obligated to pay.

But plans had stark differences. The Senate language put the onus of paying a fee on whoever “originally engaged and entered into a contract” with a broker, which is typically a landlord.

The House’s version left open the possibility of renters covering the fee if they “initiated contact” with the broker, which include by simply responding to an apartment listing.

Samantha J. Gross can be reached at samantha.gross@globe.com. Follow her @samanthajgross. Matt Stout can be reached at matt.stout@globe.com. Follow him @mattpstout.