Transcript Highlights:

• Within this section, we’ve got multiple programs. One is the marine biotoxin program.
• Within this section, we've got multiple programs. One is the marine biotoxin program.
• So when we're looking at programs and how we're implementing programs, we should be taking those changes
• But they've also continued to add additional layers to their program, like a transplant program.
• They've also continued to add additional layers to their program, like a transplant program, into their

Bills: SB5816 , SB5971

Committee: Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources

Keywords: juice grapes, agriculture, commerce, state regulation, market access, green fertilizer, low-carbon, sustainability, incentive program

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:20:26.559><c> STARS</c><00:20:27.640><c> program</c> of Alternative Programs STARS program of
• program.
• program.
• program.
• </c> cycle as traditional programs. cycle as traditional programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Stanley, as a sponsored research program, a sponsored program meaning external funding.
• As a sponsored research program, a sponsored program meaning external funding, these funds that were
• The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs at UALR reviewed the expenditures per program guidelines
• I mean, the program staff were administering the program per the guidelines that had been approved by
• The sponsored program reviews...

Committee: All LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING

Summary: The committee first adopted prior minutes and then heard several standing committee audit reports. The executive committee report noted audit and special reports scheduled for the month, one outstanding committee-requested report, and a request to gather information on a possible special report for February. The city/county/local report covered delinquent private water and sewer audits, including reinstatement of turn-back funds for 17 entities, 59 of 64 delinquent 2023 entities filing reports, and action on the town of Daisy requiring repayment of misused street funds. The education report filed three higher education audit reports and deferred one Northwest Arkansas Community College report. The state agencies report filed four reports and deferred audits of the Department of Human Services and the Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism for more information on corrective actions. The committee then received a special audit review of the Charles W. Donaldson Scholars Academy at UA Little Rock. Auditors said the program received $10 million in desegregation funding and a $50,000 grant, awarded $1.87 million in scholarships to 379 students, and saw 116 students graduate. The review found many scholarship eligibility exceptions, including awards above the maximum and to students who did not meet GPA, enrollment-hour, or full-time requirements, and numerous disbursement documentation and authorization problems. Committee members sharply questioned the program’s oversight, the role of former staff, the use of funds for travel and cultural activities, and whether any improper spending should be referred for criminal review. UALR representatives said the program was overseen as a sponsored program, that some controls were later strengthened, and that Philander Smith only verified enrollment rather than eligibility. The committee voted to table the report until the next meeting and asked staff to gather the federal court order and additional information. Finally, the committee reviewed the annual report on matters referred to prosecutors and the Attorney General for 2024. Staff said 164 matters were referred, with 28 criminal charges filed, 39 still under review, 3 dismissed, 5 pending in court, and 96 not charged; convictions in 20 cases led to fines, restitution, audit costs, and some bond trust fund payments. Prosecutor representatives explained that many referrals do not become criminal cases because of intent, timing, or other legal limits, and said they generally seek restitution even when charges are not filed. Members asked for more standardized reporting, including whether restitution was recovered and why cases were not prosecuted, and discussed possible training and a checklist for future reports. The committee then voted to file the report and adjourned, with the next meeting set for February 12-13.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the first program is limited in how much they can work, the second program is limited to how much
• Once you're in the program, you're in the program, and depending on which program you're in, you could
• That program is no longer available.
• In the return to work program, I wanted to highlight that the only program that requires return to work
• Program requirements.

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• And we did a lot of really cutting-edge program integrity work with Medicaid and with other programs,
• The program integrity space and focus on foundational pillars such as program integrity are essential
• about what we're doing in the program integrity space and focus on foundational pillars. the program
• I want programs to be sustainable.
• And then on the EES program, that program has reverted And then on the EES program, that program has

Committee: Senate Health and Welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• We have this program, a similar program.
• Program.
• That's a new program.
• One is cost-saving programs.
• Montana has programs that utilize AI. Montana has programs that utilize AI.

Summary: The committee first heard the Office of State Treasurer’s FY27 budget presentation from Treasurer Vivek Malik. He highlighted record investment earnings, growth in MOBUCK$ linked deposits, record unclaimed property returns, expansion of the MOST 529 plan, and changes to the MoABLE disability savings program. Members then focused heavily on two budget requests: $750,000 for the Show Me My Retirement Savings program and additional spending authority for the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (MOST Scholars) program, along with a staffing request for compliance and communications positions. Much of the discussion centered on MOST Scholars’ rapid growth, how applications are prioritized, whether income is reverified, how funds flow through educational assistance organizations, and concerns about marketing, geographic distribution, and the use of public dollars for private schools. The treasurer also answered questions about the 529 plan, the pending lawsuit over the ESA general-revenue transfer, and whether funds should be swept back to general revenue when unused. Several members raised policy objections to MOST Scholars, including concerns about discrimination by participating private schools, the lack of annual income requalification, and whether the program shifts money away from public education. Other members defended the program as a parent-driven choice option and asked about expanding access, improving outreach, and ensuring the program is fully funded. The treasurer said the office was following the statute as written, that the program’s demand could exceed available resources, and that the office would continue to seek more funding and better outreach. The committee then concluded the treasurer’s budget hearing. The committee next began the FY27 budget hearing for the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development. Commissioner Bennett Boggs introduced the department’s leadership team and gave a brief overview of the department’s role in aligning postsecondary education with workforce needs through its coordinating board and strategic planning. The hearing had just started when the transcript ended, and no votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• than five graduates in graduate programs at the master's and doctoral level. ...graduate programs at
• If you think about every program was a row in an Excel spreadsheet, 2,000 programs.
• So that would be post-baccalaureate degree programs, excluding those professional programs of law, OT
• That's really important, as well as those high-cost programs. ...as well as those high-cost programs.
• Again, the idea is keeping a cost of the program in terms of what it actually costs to deliver programs

Summary: The committee met to discuss higher education funding and capital building policy. Members first heard an update from NDUS Deputy Commissioner Lisa Johnson on low-producing academic programs. She described a proposed board policy using a five-year rolling window and thresholds of fewer than 10 undergraduate graduates or fewer than 5 graduate graduates, with programs flagged for three consecutive review periods going to the board. Possible outcomes would include continuation, continuation with modifications, inactivation, or termination. Members asked about how the review would account for program costs, service to other students, workforce demand, and the difference between inactivation and termination. Johnson said the board would consider broader factors and that campuses already do detailed program analysis. Several members also asked about cost savings and staffing impacts from program terminations, and Johnson said the board would try to provide more information later. The committee then received a report on the Capital Building Fund from Jamie Wilkie. He reviewed the program’s history, matching requirements, and recent uses, noting that about $334 million in state and matching dollars has been invested overall, with most going to deferred maintenance and extraordinary repairs. Members discussed whether the program is reducing deferred maintenance and requested updated systemwide data on deferred maintenance and campus space utilization. Wilkie said the board is considering a new study to update deferred maintenance figures, which are based on information more than 12 years old. He also reported that several institutions have used current biennium funds for projects such as residence hall renovations, health sciences housing, generators, and building repairs. Later, the committee began a detailed walkthrough of a draft bill that would replace the current higher education funding formula with an FTE-based model and also revise the capital building fund structure. The draft would use fall enrollment FTEs, add completion incentives for degrees in in-demand fields, and create a separate research funding component for UND and NDSU tied to doctoral completions and external research expenditures. Members raised concerns about the use of older data in the formula, the treatment of waivers, the weighting of professional and health sciences programs, and the use of CIP codes to define CTE and education incentives. The bill draft would also combine capital building fund tiers, broaden eligible uses for deferred maintenance and legislatively authorized projects, change matching requirements, repeal the old formula chapter and the capital pool, and transfer funds from the Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund into the capital building fund. No final votes were taken during the portion provided; the meeting was primarily discussion and review.

Transcript Highlights:

• So right now, those programs live elsewhere, and those programs have a 5% set-aside for administrative
• This investment will be used for a combination of programs, including a loan loss guarantee program,
• This investment will be used for a combination of programs, including a loan loss guarantee program,
• programs as well.
• , the multifamily housing program, the portfolio reinvestment program, the Joe Cerna Jr.

Summary: The subcommittee heard several May Revision proposals related to the state’s housing and homelessness reorganization. On the first item, administration and Finance staff described technical adjustments to move administrative positions and resources between the California Housing and Homelessness Agency, HCD, and Cal ICH, plus authority for a chief deputy director at the new Housing Development Finance Committee. The LAO recommended approval but asked for clarification on funding for the chief deputy position. Several senators questioned whether the staffing shifts would reduce Cal ICH’s capacity and whether adding communications support and a new executive position was appropriate absent new housing funding; the item was held open. The second item proposed a new $100 million CalHFA Disaster Rebuilding Fund, with $56 million General Fund and $44 million in existing National Mortgage Settlement funds, to help disaster-impacted homeowners access construction financing through tools such as a loan loss guarantee and interest rate buy-downs. CalHFA said the fund would help close the gap between insurance proceeds and rebuilding costs and would work through approved lenders. The LAO raised concerns about the lack of alternatives analysis, the broad delegation in the trailer bill, and the General Fund cost. Senators pressed for more detail on the estimated number of homeowners served, lender and homeowner eligibility, equity safeguards, and the role of the Legislature in program design; the item was held open. The third item was trailer bill language for HAP Round 7, including accountability metrics, pro-housing designation requirements for certain large cities and counties, local match requirements, and a mechanism to recapture unspent funds. HCD said the proposal would streamline reporting by using one consistent set of system performance measures and would phase in the new requirements. The LAO questioned the timing, the burden of pro-housing designation, the size and source of the local match, and whether the proposal conflicted with the Legislature’s prior goal of getting funds out quickly. Several senators criticized the added requirements and the lack of new funding, while others said the proposal could improve accountability and reduce administrative burden by reusing existing plans. The item was also held open. The fourth item began a proposal to reduce local development impact fees on state-funded affordable housing projects, framed as a condition on competitive multifamily funding rather than a statewide mandate. The presentation started but the transcript cuts off before questions or action on that item.

Transcript Highlights:

• We noticed four rulemaking packages to advance the program and its improvements to program efficiencies
• Moving on to performance metrics, the board is working program by program to develop performance metrics
• We do have the Mercury Thermostat EPR program at DTSC, and it is a relatively small program.
• Consumer Products Program.
• We heard about EPR programs.

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on DTSC’s implementation of SB 158 reforms, including enforcement, community engagement, fiscal stability, the hazardous waste management plan, permitting backlogs, and the Safer Consumer Products Program. Director Katie Butler said DTSC is now more transparent and proactive, citing stronger enforcement actions, an online inspections map, community open houses, the Environmental Justice Advisory Council, wildfire hazardous waste removal in Los Angeles, and progress on cleanup and permit decisions. She said the department is fiscally stable after fee changes, has released a draft hazardous waste management plan, and is revising it in response to public and board comments, including removing a proposal to send certain contaminated soil to municipal landfills. Board Chair Andrew Rakestraw described the board’s oversight role on fees, transparency, appeals, and performance metrics, and said the board is working toward revised metrics, a revised plan, and future fee votes. Members pressed DTSC on several issues. Senator Blakespear raised extended producer responsibility programs and asked how DTSC could reduce the cost and complexity of launching them; Butler said enforcement and partnerships with local authorities are essential, and Rakestraw suggested closer coordination with CalRecycle. Chair Connolly asked about wildfire cleanup, fee stability, Safer Consumer Products progress, and permit lengths; Butler said residential fire cleanup is largely complete, the fee system is now stable, the consumer products program has many technical projects underway and is expected to reach more listings over time, and some permits are set for five years to hold facilities accountable sooner. Senator Menjivar questioned how DTSC balances hazardous waste capacity with community impacts from facilities with violation histories, and Butler said permits are reviewed through engineering controls, health risk assessments, public comment, and, where needed, stricter conditions. Senator Reyes emphasized the need for stronger protections for overburdened communities and asked about landfill leachate and goal-setting in the hazardous waste plan; Butler said DTSC is using its hazardous waste authority where municipal landfill leachate shows hazardous characteristics and is looking at broader statewide responses. Panelists from the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance and Earthjustice offered contrasting views. CCEB’s Don Krepke supported SB 158’s reforms but urged risk-based decision-making, broader use of alternative management standards, alignment with federal and other state hazardous waste classifications, less duplication across agencies, and caution about added costs from permitting and cumulative impacts rules; he also warned that the generation-and-handling fee remains structurally weak and suggested more General Fund support for statewide planning work. Earthjustice’s Angela Johnson-Mazares argued DTSC remains too slow and too cautious, saying communities continue to face delayed permits, weak enforcement, and ongoing harm, and that the agency should prioritize source reduction, strong permit protections, and more decisive action to prevent emissions and protect frontline communities.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the breakfast program, the food program, the milk program, there's all separate programs that have
• food program the milk program the food program the milk program<00:22:36.799><c> there's</c><00:22:37.080
• </c> nutrition program is a program about nutrition program is a program about reimbursing<00:43:52.760
• program or plan education program program or plan program<00:54:04.160><c> program</c><00:54:04.839>
• program um IND education program program program um IND education program and<00:54:07.079><c> then<

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:

• I think starting programs and ending programs over and over again is worse than never even having them
• Funeral program for someone who had passed away and became the local funeral program creator.
• welfare programs.
• Regarding our STEM CMA program is a year-long extensive program.
• in the program.

Committee: House House Government, Elections & Indian Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• as the program of last resort.
• benefits, and eligibility requirements of each of the programs, program infrastructure.
• So, as I mentioned, with these programs declining in enrollment, a number of programs have limited the
• as the program of last resort.
• with these programs declining in enrollment number of programs have limited the networks that provide

Transcript Highlights:

• Program, or CFAP.
• were on the federal program.
• this program.
• and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, also known as CSFP or the Senior Food Program.
• Our staff do multiple programs. So the workload is also keeping the right programs. Graham.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a program where we.
• With just under $10 million, we recently launched a new program called the ZIP program, Zero Interest
• Development Program.
• program, our Destination Forward program, and our Clean and Beautiful program.
• : the Events Program, the Destination Forward Program, and Clean and Beautiful.

Transcript Highlights:

• And there is a great program.
• And there is a great program.
• , and our school-age programs.
• , program type 2 family child care, and program type 3 center child care?
• to continue with the program.

Committee: Joint Human Services Committee

Summary: The committee first approved the February 11, 2026 minutes and then received an update from the North Dakota Housing Finance Agency on the interagency council on homelessness and continuum of care funding. Testimony described rising homelessness tied to tight housing markets, low incomes, aging homelessness, barriers to rental assistance and public benefits, and limited shelter and case-management capacity. Members discussed the need for more affordable housing, continued one-time funding for the North Dakota Homeless Grant and Housing Incentive Fund, better coordination with Health and Human Services on economic assistance and human service zones, landlord engagement, recovery housing, and reentry housing. The committee also heard that federal continuum of care funding remains uncertain, with possible shifts away from permanent supportive housing and housing-first models; members asked for a future update on the impact if federal rules reduce the share available for permanent housing. The committee then took testimony on accessibility of government services for people who are blind or visually impaired. Paul Olson of North Dakota Vision Services School for the Blind described current screening and service delivery, including infant referrals, regional staff, short-term programs, and collaboration with vocational rehabilitation. He said the targeted screening system is working, recommended maintaining the current model, and noted ongoing challenges with staffing, public awareness, and accessible state websites and documents. Public testimony from a visually impaired resident and a deaf resident emphasized barriers such as CAPTCHAs, inaccessible PDFs, employment forms that screen out applicants based on driver’s license status, shortages of interpreters, and the need for video remote interpreting and video relay services, along with training for users and agencies. Finally, the committee heard a final report on the study of child care provider licensing from HHS Early Childhood Director Kay Larson. The report summarized provider input and committee discussion on simplifying North Dakota’s child care licensing structure, reducing administrative burden, and balancing that with health and safety standards. Key topics included licensing categories, child care assistance eligibility, food program sponsorship, staff qualifications, training requirements, ratios and group size, age bands, and preschool exemptions. The committee’s recommendations included streamlining to three provider types plus a preschool designation, revising ratio and age-band rules, and carrying forward certain preschool outdoor-space exemptions. Larson noted that any changes would require statutory changes, rulemaking, and a transition period before new licensing rules could take effect.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh this is a competitive grant program at DEED to fund nonprofit vehicle programs offering affordable
• Getting to Work grant program.
• So, this is a great program.
• program, or is this separate?
• </c> our program. our program.

Committee: Senate Jobs and Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't think any of us would disagree that you have to streamline programs, you have to make programs
• Program, or CFAP.
• For farm safety net programs, it provides appropriations for many of the farm safety net programs that
• Program.
• . programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> program?
• Will it mirror the UI program program?
• combining program in ensuring program combining program in combining<01:24:45.120><c> program</c><01
• </c> we have program, you know, our program we have program, you know, our program integrity<01:25:48.639
• </c> a lot of programs. a lot of programs.

Committee: House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• There are subsidy programs that the state offers, like ACD programs, the federal programs, as well as
• There's a 9% program and the 4% program.
• and the 9% program.
• , the LIHTC program, which is a federal program.
• the My Access program.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine how California finances affordable housing and homeownership. Co-chairs opened by describing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for the committee to identify practical recommendations. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Treasurer’s housing finance committees, CalHFA, and Related discussed the layered financing structure used for affordable housing, including federal low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental assistance. Witnesses emphasized that affordable housing projects typically require multiple funding sources and that the system is often slowed by complex applications, overlapping rules, and too many layers of financing. Several speakers noted recent federal changes that expanded the 9% and 4% tax credit programs, including a lower bond-financing threshold for 4% credits, which should allow more projects to move forward. State officials also highlighted ongoing efforts to streamline the system, including the SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency, which is intended to align housing, homelessness, and civil rights functions. CalHFA described its homeownership and multifamily programs, including My Home, Dream For All, Cal Assist Mortgage Fund, and the Mixed Income Program, and said its financing tools help first-time buyers and developers. Related and other housing providers said the state has made real progress through land-use reform, accountability enforcement, and faster tax credit allocation, but argued that funding remains far below need. They called for more state and permanent funding sources, more efficient administration, more support for ADU and modular financing, and better attention to deeper affordability, the “missing middle,” and equity impacts on renters, women, and communities of color. The hearing was informational only; no votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• PROGRAM REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PERFORMANCE MEASURING PROGRAM WITH SECRETARY DIXON.
• SO AS IT RELATES TO PROGRAMS WE KNOW THAT IF WE INVOLVE INDIVIDUALS IN EDUCATION PROGRAMMING THEY HAD
• OTHER EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM EXPENDITURES.
• WITH THEIR PROGRAM THERE.
• THOSE ARE PROGRAMMING SERVICES.