Transcript Highlights:

• Auditor General and Department of Financial Services, respectively, for the 2020-21 through 2022-23 fiscal
• You'll note that the $10,000 and $20 thresholds there are kind of on the low side, but that is what the
• We did note one duplicate payment.
• The contractor noted the duplicate payment, notified the city, and they did refund them.
• The entities, there's notes on those schedules of correspondence.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Auditing Committee heard the Auditor General’s operational audit of the City of Mexico Beach, which identified nine findings. The audit cited significant turnover in key management positions, late filing of required annual financial reports, weaknesses in competitive procurement and purchase approval controls, a duplicate payment on stormwater repairs that was later largely refunded, issues with the city accountant’s contract and IRS classification, IT access control problems, and the lack of fraud-reporting policies. Committee members asked about corrective action, and the Auditor General said a follow-up audit is required by statute within 18 months, with no enforcement authority beyond reporting progress back to the committee. Mayor Rich Wolf and city staff responded that the city had experienced major turnover and was rebuilding its finance and administrative team. He said the city had hired a city administrator, financial director, city clerk, and accounting firm, and was working to create policies, procedures, forms, and review processes to address the findings. Members discussed whether the turnover and hurricane-related workload contributed to the problems, and city officials said some of the larger purchases were storm-related and tied to FEMA or emergency work. The committee then received a staff update on enforcement for local governments that have not filed required financial reports. Staff said 400 entities had been notified, and as of the meeting two counties, 33 municipalities, and 48 special districts still owed reports or audits. The committee adopted a motion to proceed under section 11.42, Florida Statutes, including possible withholding of state funds for municipalities and enforcement actions for special districts, with authority for the chair and vice chair to delay action if new information warranted it. Finally, the committee unanimously directed the Auditor General and OPPAGA to conduct the required 2024-2025 audit of the Department of the Lottery, with the Auditor General handling financial, internal control, and compliance issues and OPPAGA developing operational recommendations. Members also briefly discussed whether the committee had reviewed transportation surtaxes and expressed interest in improving the timeliness and transparency of the audit and enforcement process before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's $89 million above the last fiscal year to date, around 1.7% above last fiscal year to date.
• That's up $163.7 million from last fiscal year to date from those first eight months of the last fiscal
• I had some notes before, like the last few months about the natural gas price.
• Senator Flowers, the system we are using now will not be supported next fiscal year.
• Our fiscal operation, we centralized our fiscal; they used to do their own fiscal operation, DSB did.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And I just have a note here that that didn't stay very long.
• At the end of fiscal year 2016, the state had spent $617 million more than it took in.
• About $30 million to the state was part of the fiscal. It does have a cost.
• About $30 million to the state was part of the fiscal impact report last session.
• Senator, when we extend the sunset, there is a new fiscal impact.

Summary: The committee’s final day focused first on a historical overview of New Mexico tax packages by Pam Stokes of Legislative Council Services. She described how tax packages have alternated over the decades between tax relief, revenue raising, and tax reform, with examples ranging from the creation of the gross receipts tax in 1966 to major packages in 1981, 1986, 1991, 1994, 2005, 2019, 2022, 2024, and the vetoed 2025 package. Members discussed how tax policy often tracks revenue conditions, how packages can combine increases and decreases, and how local government gross receipts taxes and hold-harmless distributions have affected communities differently. Several members reflected on past packages, especially the 2004 food tax repeal and the 2013 film tax and manufacturing changes, and noted that tax policy can have major economic and political effects even when it is not “sexy” legislation. The committee then heard a proposal to expand the health care practitioner gross receipts tax deduction to include co-insurance, and to extend the sunset date. Sponsor Senator Figueroa said the bill was intended to help recruit and retain medical providers and build on prior deductions for co-pays and deductibles. Testimony explained that co-insurance is the patient’s share after the deductible, that providers currently absorb the gross receipts tax on those payments, and that the proposal would cost about $30 million to the state plus about $20 million to municipalities and counties, with the exact fiscal impact likely to be updated. Members raised concerns about the effect on local governments, whether insurers could be required to reimburse providers, whether the bill would actually attract doctors, and whether better evaluation measures and sunsets should be added. The sponsor said the bill was part of a broader set of efforts to address provider shortages and that the discussion would continue. Representative McQueen then presented a bill to update the Land Conservation Incentives Act. He and conservation partners said the program has protected more than 500,000 acres but has not kept pace with rising land values, especially for irrigated agricultural land in the Middle Rio Grande. The proposal would increase the percentage of conservation value eligible for the credit, raise the per-transaction cap from $250,000 to $2 million, and make the credit refundable rather than only transferable. Testimony emphasized that the program is voluntary, keeps land in private ownership and production, and helps land-rich, cash-poor landowners preserve farmland and water rights. Members asked about average credit amounts, how easements work, whether landowners could effectively buy land and then use the credit, and whether there should be inflation indexing or a statewide cap. The discussion also touched on water rights, fencing, and the role of conservation easements in protecting agricultural land and compact water deliveries. Finally, Senator Sharer previewed his 2% tax proposal with a historical presentation on New Mexico tax law, using props to illustrate the evolution from early territorial tax codes to the modern tax system. He argued that the state’s current tax structure is overly complex and that recent federal changes have disrupted the personal income tax base. The committee did not take any votes on the day’s presentations; the meeting was primarily informational, with members offering feedback and raising policy concerns for future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• This chart reflects appropriations by fund over the last 10 fiscal years, including the current fiscal
• What you'll notice is that in fiscal year 2019-2020, there was a...
• years 2022-2023 and then continuing into fiscal year 2023-2024.
• I call this the fiscal performance measure, if you want to look at that.
• So I just want to show that's the fiscal look.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Health and Human Services heard a base budget overview for the 2025-26 fiscal year, which was presented as a $46.8 billion starting point for the silo. Staff explained that HHS accounts for about half of the state base budget and roughly 36% of general revenue, with AHCA and Medicaid making up the largest share. The committee then reviewed the PACE program for the elderly, including its eligibility, service model, growth in applications, slot funding and reversions, and the agency’s plan to move from the federal three-way agreement to a more detailed two-party contract to improve accountability, transparency, and reporting. Members raised concerns about unfilled slots, reversions, rural access, and the need for clearer return-on-investment data; the agency said it would follow up on some of those questions. The committee also heard from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities on its statewide dental program. APD described its history of appropriations, the failed January 2024 solicitation, and a new up-to-$11.5 million solicitation focused on preventive care, community partnerships, teledentistry, and coordination with other services. Members questioned overlap with Medicaid dental coverage, the effect of Medicaid unwinding on APD clients, and whether state dollars were duplicating federally supported services; APD said it tries to act as payer of last resort and that services would continue during procurement. Public testimony from an APD stakeholder and the Florida Dental Association emphasized Medicaid eligibility problems for waiver recipients, low reimbursement rates, limited access to anesthesia and hospital-based dental care, and concerns that proposed Medicaid changes could reduce access for special-needs patients. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs then presented on state veterans service officers and benefits assistance. FDVA highlighted its role in helping veterans access federal benefits, reporting about $27.9 billion in federal dollars flowing into Florida and a high return on state investment. The department said it has increased outreach, claims processing, and services, and has trained staff to identify mental health concerns through its Overwatch program. In response to questions, FDVA discussed plans to expand adult day health care at a new veterans nursing home and possibly at existing locations with additional state funding. At the end of the meeting, the committee completed its presentations and adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, we'll turn to our able counsel and able fiscal staff, fiscal analyst, to help us understand what
• <00:18:45.840> staff,<00:18:46.280> fiscal uh counsel and able fiscal staff, fiscal
• uh counsel and able fiscal staff, fiscal analyst,<00:18:47.120> to<00:18:47.240> help<
• Um, the fiscal note is still in process, and I'm hoping we get that before Wednesday and we can update
• Corridor Commission in fiscal year 27. Corridor Commission in fiscal year 27.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You all may know that there's a fiscal note attached to this bill.
• The fiscal note reflects the anticipated costs of the FLM program to the state of Minnesota.
• The fiscal note attached to this bill.
• > anticipated fiscal note reflects the anticipated fiscal note reflects the anticipated costs<
• There is no fiscal note. Thank you. Thank you.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We allocate funds on a fiscal year basis. We're now already in fiscal year 26.
• We allocate funds on a fiscal year basis.
• We're now already in fiscal year 26 from a state perspective.
• And fiscal 30 is just not that far off.
• our fiscal year 2026 and just slightly ahead of our state's fiscal year 2027, right, which are April

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on the Census held an early planning hearing on how Massachusetts can maximize participation in the 2030 census, with Chair Will Brownsberger and Vice Chair Rebecca Rausch emphasizing the need to start well in advance. The first panel, made up of leaders from the Massachusetts Voter Table, MassVOTE, MIRA, and MESA, stressed that grassroots community organizations are trusted messengers and should be funded early to do multilingual outreach, training, and direct assistance in hard-to-count communities. They described lessons from 2020, including the shift to internet response, reduced federal census infrastructure, the importance of coordinated statewide networks, and the need to begin messaging several years before Census Day because building trust and staffing outreach takes time. Panelists repeatedly warned that immigrant communities are facing heightened fear because of federal immigration enforcement and the possibility of a citizenship question or other federal changes, making census participation more difficult. They said 2020 funding arrived too late to fully staff and train outreach teams before the pandemic, and argued that future resources should be deployed earlier and more flexibly. In response to committee questions, they estimated Massachusetts should invest roughly $8 million to $10 million or more in state census outreach, with one proposed model of about $3 million to $5 million at the start, additional funding in the middle years, and a larger final push closer to 2030. They also suggested that funding should support communications infrastructure, translation, social media and ethnic media outreach, and possibly a permanent complete count structure or trust fund to preserve institutional knowledge. A second panel from Common Cause Massachusetts and the ACLU of Massachusetts echoed the call for stronger, earlier investment and stronger privacy protections. They urged the legislature to expand existing census line items, consider a trust fund or other dedicated funding stream, and coordinate census outreach with other state programs that already work through trusted community messengers. The ACLU testimony focused on racial inequities in census counts and warned that federal efforts to exclude non-citizens or add a citizenship question would deepen distrust and undercount immigrant communities. Committee members asked about the 2020 overcount/undercount results, funding levels, timing of grant distribution, and whether census outreach should be routed through the Secretary of the Commonwealth or other state mechanisms; no votes were taken, and the hearing moved on to a later panel on immigrant-community outreach.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:04.239> Court, Breenidge County Fiscal Court, Breenidge County Fiscal Court, addressing
• It specifies fiscal court for approval.
• The court noted that to the ordinance.
• <00:14:20.000> court government, specifically a fiscal court government, specifically a fiscal
• April or May the fiscal court um will April or May the fiscal court um will set<00:42:06.240> the<

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the answer when you try to look at the fiscal note, the dollar amounts and the budget impact is a
• <01:03:07.119> note, when you try to look at the fiscal note, when you try to look at the
• fiscal note, the<01:03:08.240> dollar<01:03:08.559> amounts<01:03:09.280> and<01
• c><01:06:29.280> a<01:06:29.400> hundred,000 fiscal fiscal year 26 and a hundred,000 fiscal
• This will represent an increased cost, as estimated in the fiscal note of the bill.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee first took up Senate Bill 63, which Representative Maguire described as a straightforward bill setting funding for the Division of Travel and Tourism. He said it was not controversial. The committee voted to retain the bill by roll call, with one no vote and one member absent, and the motion passed 23-1-1. The committee then considered Senate Bill 74, dealing with annual reporting requirements for state departments that issue permits. Representative Maguire explained Amendment 2282 would shorten the reporting burden by requiring summary data on delayed permits rather than listing every permit, and would delay the first report until 2027 so agencies would not have to reconstruct old data. The amendment was adopted by voice vote, and the bill was then approved as amended by a 24-1 roll call vote. Next, the committee heard Senate Bill 241 on construction of a public pier at Hampton Beach. Representative Sweeney moved inexpedient to legislate, saying the project was ambitious and lacked public support. The motion passed unanimously 25-0, sending the bill to consent. Division Two then took up Senate Bill 145, a replace-all amendment to the education freedom account bill. Supporters said the amendment clarified the bill, kept the policy intact, removed a reimbursement program and an open-ended appropriation, and established a cap of 10,000 students with priority for current students and certain other groups. Opponents argued the measure was still a major expansion, would increase spending after crossover, and that the cap was not meaningful. After discussion, Amendment 2301H was adopted and the bill was approved as amended by a 25-0 vote, with members noting it could go on consent because no money remained in it.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's in large part due to some recent strong asset performance, most notably in fiscal year 2021.
• This compares favorably to fiscal year 2020, when some of the highest contribution rates in these plans
• And we, And you just might note that the U.S. CPI tends to be a little bit higher.
• And you can note a couple of things, I guess: the Seattle CPI bounces around a lot more...
• But this is a fiscal committee, and not unlike the legislature, policies and fiscal considerations aren't

Summary: The Pension Funding Council met on October 8 with introductions from council members and staff, then received a detailed presentation from the Office of the State Actuary on long-term economic assumptions and the state pension systems’ financial condition. OSA reported that the combined pension systems are currently 100% funded on a smoothed basis, with open plans above 95% funded, and that legacy Plan 1 systems remain on a path toward full funding under current policy. The actuaries recommended updating assumptions to 3% inflation, 3.5% general salary growth, and a 7.25% investment return, while keeping Plan 1 membership growth at 1%. They also explained asset smoothing, the role of recent strong investment returns, and the expected budget impacts of the recommended changes. Representatives from the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council and the State Investment Board offered supporting perspectives, generally describing the assumptions as reasonable and consistent with their own outlooks. The council also heard an overview of the Long-Term Services and Supports Trust Program (WACares) from DSHS and OSA. Program staff described the program’s social insurance structure, premium collection, benefit eligibility, and upcoming implementation milestones. OSA reported that the program’s first actuarial valuation showed a positive actuarial balance under the base scenario and recommended no change to the current 0.58% premium rate during the program’s early learning phase, noting that future changes would depend on experience and the program’s risk-management framework. OSA also said the recommendation would remain the same regardless of the outcome of the pending ballot measure affecting investment options. During public comment, a representative of the Washington State School Retirees Association urged continued work on Plan 1 funding and related legislation, while the Association of Washington Cities cautioned against increasing pension assumptions in a way that could raise future employer costs and reduce flexibility for current local government services. In action, the council adopted a motion to maintain the current long-term economic assumptions by a 4-2 vote, adopted the recommendation to keep the WACares premium rate at 0.58% by a 6-0 vote, and then elected Katie Chapman as council chair by unanimous vote. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It does not have a second reference, nor is there a fiscal note. Thank you, counsel.
• I don't know that a fiscal note was provided to you.
• I know that a fiscal note was done, but I couldn't tell you exact numbers and what was put in that.
• And I mean, we actually—I think I asked for a fiscal note when we were over here and tried to get the
• note brought up about it.

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The committee considered several bills and amendments, beginning with House Bill 4995 on video cameras in special education classrooms. Counsel explained that the bill would require parents to be notified of recording interruptions, provide written notice of the camera law to parents and school employees, allow recordings to be used for discipline of school personnel, shorten required random review intervals from 90 days to 30 days, and clarify that local boards still must independently investigate abuse allegations. The committee then moved to report HB 4995 to the full Senate with a do pass recommendation, and the motion was adopted. House Bill 5214, dealing with child abuse and neglect cases, was amended to allow courts to require drug testing of parents in certain cases, require laboratory confirmation of positive results, require the department to pay testing costs, and notify the court and guardian ad litem of positive results. The committee adopted the amendment, reported the bill as amended, and adopted a title amendment. The committee also considered House Bill 4025 and House Bill 5441, both restructuring civil service and grievance procedures for certain state agencies. HB 4025 would exempt employees of Health, health facilities, and Human Services from classified civil service and grievance procedures beginning July 1, 2026, while HB 5441 would do the same for Transportation, Revenue, and the Bureau for Social Services and transfer personnel functions to the Division of Personnel. After discussion, the committee adopted the amendments and reported both bills as amended. For House Bill 4602, a revived child welfare privatization proposal, the committee heard testimony from the Bureau for Social Services about caseloads, provider access to the PATH system, oversight responsibilities, and concerns about costs and outcomes in other states. The chair amended the bill to remove one of the two pilot regions, leaving only the Berkeley/Jefferson County pilot. Despite opposition from the senator from Marion, the committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill as amended. House Bill 4106, which would remove the provisional concealed handgun license requirement for 18- to 20-year-olds, drew testimony from a pediatric physician opposing the change and from a gun rights advocate supporting it. An amendment requiring under-21 individuals to complete firearms training was offered but defeated by roll call vote, and the bill was then reported as amended. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 4198, an E-Verify bill. A subcommittee report and strike-and-insert amendment revised definitions, exemptions, notice requirements, record retention, and penalties, and the committee invoked the previous question to end debate. The strike-and-insert amendment was adopted, and HB 4198 was reported to the full Senate as amended. House Bill 5319 was removed from the agenda, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I yield, Senator Schwertner. ...What's the fiscal note on this? I'm sorry?
• The fiscal note amount on this?
• The fiscal note was like $800,000, but that had to do with the administration.
• So that's what the fiscal note is. The grant money is from?
• Are you aware that the fiscal note on that bill also noted that there probably is a local cost to that

Bills: SJR12, SJR37, SB7, SB8, SB16, SB27, SB108, SB125, SB207, SB251, SB318, SB371, SB379, SB396, SB406, SB472, SB503, SB533, SB578, SB599, SB608, SB617, SB621, SB689, SB707, SB763, SB836, SB854, SB856, SB857, SB875, SB878, SB906, SB922, SB942, SB965, SB985, SB988, SB1021, SB1059, SB1084, SB1098, SB1185, SB1188, SB1202, SB1207, SB1307, SB1321, SB1330, SB1366, SB1388, SB1396, SB1453, SB1484, SB1497, SB1498, SB1535, SB1563, SB1596, SB1610, SB1619, SB1737, SB1738, SB1741, SB1816, SB1822, SB1841, SB1939, SB2188, SJR36, SJR12, SJR37, SJR81, SJR50, SCR22, SCR12, SCR39, SB875, SB318, SB707, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB1497, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB856, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB608, SB955, SB957, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB541, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB1029, SB1185, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741, SB7, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1366, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1816, SB1841, SB2188, SB1147, SB879, SB1008, SB1536, SB2016, SB1453, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB27, SB568, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB906, SB860, SB1563, SB993, SB693, SB1610, SB1537, SB836, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB922, SB984, SB1084, SB619, SB1098, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1664, SB1877, SB464, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB660, SB731, SB921, SB268, SB1822, SB1188, SB1939, SB1589, SB397, SB1388, SB2230, SB1058, SB1036, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB1035, SB2155, SB508, SB29, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719, SB1386, SB287, SB2143, SB1245, SB261, SB1247, SB1948, SB2406, SB2407, SB1882, SB1197, SB1814, SB618, SB38

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, voter ID, citizenship, election integrity, voting rights, water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, immigration enforcement, ICE agreements, sheriff grants, law enforcement, county jail, federal immigration law

Transcript Highlights:

• I completely recognize and appreciate the fiscal challenges that we have.
• So, as LAO noted, it appears that the state has met its funding commitment.
• And third, we want to remain fiscally prudent with taxpayer dollars.
• And third, we want to remain fiscally prudent with taxpayer dollars.
• We are one fiscal downturn away from, say, a $100 billion deficit.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard the Department of Finance’s May Revision overview and the LAO’s budget assessment, then questioned administration officials on several natural resources and transportation proposals. Finance described the state’s improved near-term fiscal picture, but also highlighted continued budget balancing measures, including use of the temporary surplus holding account, climate bond spending, transportation and DMV/CHP augmentations, and changes affecting CEQA filing systems, water programs, CalRecycle, and food and agriculture. The LAO argued the budget still relies heavily on reserves and borrowing, recommended rejecting or delaying many new discretionary proposals, and urged caution about ongoing costs and future-year impacts, especially for the General Fund, Motor Vehicle Account, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance officials said the $25 million request would support early implementation of an enforceable program combining environmental flows, habitat restoration, and scientific monitoring, with the State Water Board retaining regulatory authority. The LAO said the proposal was premature because the updated Bay-Delta plan had not yet been adopted and asked for more clarity on the state’s existing commitments and future funding expectations. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce long-running conflict over water policy, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquisition of the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat restoration. State agencies said the project had a completed appraisal, was moving through a rolling grant process, and would leverage philanthropic and local funding, while members questioned why it was being elevated ahead of other park and conservation requests and whether it was the best use of limited bond dollars. The hearing then turned to transportation items, including $40 million for Clean California litter abatement, $6.2 million for Caltrans homeless coordinators, $73.4 million in DMV/Motor Vehicle Account requests, and funding for the 2028 Games route network. The LAO generally recommended rejecting or delaying the Clean California and homeless coordinator proposals pending more information, while members debated the need to preserve essential CHP and DMV operations despite the Motor Vehicle Account’s structural imbalance.

Transcript Highlights:

• this is in the fiscal note what you know this is in the fiscal note what you know what<00:58:15.839
• <00:58:19.280> notes<00:58:19.640> are for I can only say the fiscal notes are for
• Finally, I just wanted to say that the fiscal note again is over $100,000.
• the fiscal note again is over the fiscal note again is over $100,000<01:38:41.159> I'm<01
• <01:54:01.400> note that obviously there's not a fiscal note that obviously there's not a

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 662, which would require public schools to include discussion of abortion procedures and show specified videos in health education classes. The prime sponsor argued the bill would ensure students receive medically accurate, age-appropriate, and nonpolitical information about abortion, saying the topic is important for informed decision-making and should be taught consistently statewide. He said the videos were intended for grades 9-12, that parents could opt out, and that the requirement was meant to supplement, not sway, students’ views. He also acknowledged the bill could be seen as limiting local control over curriculum and said the intent was to prevent the topic from being missed due to scheduling disruptions. Committee members questioned the sponsor about local control, the need for a video mandate, the source of his statistics, whether the bill could be biased or inflammatory, and whether the requirement should apply every year in high school. The sponsor said the videos were only a starting point, could be replaced by others, and were meant to be informational. He also said the bill was not intended to influence students’ decisions about abortion. Several supporters testified in favor, including representatives of New Hampshire Right to Life and others who said students should be told the “truth” about abortion and its consequences. They emphasized graphic or emotionally difficult aspects of abortion and argued that young people need this information to make informed choices. Opponents and skeptical witnesses raised concerns about prescribing curriculum, eroding local control, and the appropriateness of the material for younger high school students. The New Hampshire School Administrators Association said the bill was overly prescriptive, that health education standards are already set by the State Board of Education, and that the topics in the bill are not part of the current standards. That witness recommended the committee consider retaining the bill for further work or making it less prescriptive. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• note.
• Thank you very much, Representative Sexton, and you've noted that.
• <00:08:36.919> note.
• capture that in a fiscal note. capture that in a fiscal note.
• <00:08:46.160> All Sexton, and you've noted that. All Sexton, and you've noted that.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's this spread out over those between fiscal year 2027 and fiscal year 2030.
• So that's the fiscal year 2027 budget.
• Folks may recall this from fiscal year 2022.
• But I think it's important to note that that was not for the full fiscal year. Thank you.
• But I think it's important noting that that was not for the full fiscal year. Thank you.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state’s tax collection cap/62F process so it would be based on prior-year collections plus wage growth and include surtax revenue. The committee chair and House co-chair outlined the hearing process, and the first witness was Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, who testified as the committee’s subject-matter expert on both measures. He said the income tax proposal would lower taxes broadly but would reduce state revenue by about $5.4 billion when fully implemented, with an estimated $800 million hit in FY27, and he discussed possible effects on competitiveness, taxpayer savings, and public finances. On the 62F proposal, he said the revised cap would make refunds more likely, could have produced several large refunds in recent years, and would reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Committee members questioned Howgate about competitiveness, outmigration, prior tax ballot measures, spending growth, MassHealth, and the interaction between the income tax and surtax. He emphasized that taxes are only one part of the state’s overall competitiveness and that housing, public services, and other factors also matter. He also noted that the surtax is constitutionally restricted but can still support ongoing spending choices. After his testimony, the committee moved to the proponents’ panel. Proponents of both initiatives, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, the National Federation of Independent Business, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that the measures would improve affordability, help retain residents and businesses, and support job growth. They cited polling support, outmigration, small-business reinvestment, and comparisons to lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, said her model showed smaller revenue losses than critics claim and projected that the revised revenue cap would not create additional annual revenue losses while producing more regular taxpayer refunds. Committee members pressed the panel on competitiveness, prior ballot initiative implementation, and whether the measures would actually address broader affordability pressures; the hearing ended with the committee continuing to take questions from the proponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do we have a fiscal note at this point of what the cost is going to be?
• So, the fiscal note on this is $600,000, and it includes reimbursement for the affected counties.
• The fiscal note on this is $600,000, and it includes reimbursement for the affected counties. >> [cough
• Do we have a fiscal note at this point Do we have a fiscal note at this point of<00:57:05.680>
• > is<00:57:37.600> $600,000 fiscal note on this is $600,000 fiscal note on this is $600,000

Keywords: 923, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• How much was the fiscal note originally? Yeah, a little over 3, 3.2.
• Well, obviously the fiscal note, we were told we got to get rid of the timeline to get rid of the fiscal
• Note once you first share. Why? What makes the difference in that and what caused the fiscal note?
• So, the fiscal note is really about the impact of making the services online.
• The fiscal note was calculated in collaboration with them. And so.

Bills: HB1106, HB3284, HB541, HB713, HB1403, HB1586, HB1942, HB2070, HB2844, HB2851, HB3151, HB3749, HB3940, HB3963, HB4454, HB4466, HB4795, HB5154, HB5394, SB1357, HB1052, HB4099, HB4638, HB5147

Keywords: child abuse, neglect, gender identity, sexual orientation, child welfare, marriage, family, Texas Commission, family welfare, marriage support, stability, premarital education, child development, strong families, direct patient care, healthcare, physicians, medical services, insurance regulation, maternal health

Transcript Highlights:

• And I see you do have a fiscal note of almost a million dollars.
• My second question or comment would be about the fiscal note.
• I have no issue with the fiscal note; I just don't think it's right.
• If it's passed, I believe there is a fiscal impact. No, a fiscal note attached.
• Yes, there is a fiscal note, but what I would say is, what is the cost of a lack of transparency?

Bills: HB256, HCR19, HB256, HB1308, HB1554, HB1743, HB2308, HB2351, HB2858, HB3676, HB3784, HB4312, HB4552, HB4823, HB4852, HB5007, HB5010, HB5520, HB5524, HCR19

Keywords: severe weather, adaptation plan, vulnerability assessment, environmental protection, state agencies, federal agents, transparency, law enforcement, identification, public trust, immigration enforcement, HCR 19, Texas concurrent resolution, federal immigration enforcement, masked agents, facial coverings, visible identification, uniforms, badges, name tags

Transcript Highlights:

• Members before you is Senate Bill 2500, the General Appropriations Bill for the 2026-2027 fiscal year
• This is a fiscally responsible budget that reduces overall spending compared to last year.
• Okay, my notes. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to talk a little bit about teacher salaries.
• Do you think we have enough funding here to avoid that in this next fiscal year? Chair Garcia.
• For the Senator Seigley noted earlier, the millions that are watching us without hesitation.

Summary: The Senate began with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved into floor consideration of the 2026-2027 budget. Appropriations Chair Hooper presented Senate Bill 2500, describing a $115 billion budget that reduces overall spending from the prior year, maintains reserves, and includes a 3% pay raise for state employees and 5% raises for state law enforcement, firefighters, correctional officers, and park rangers. Committee chairs then outlined major spending in their areas, including K-12 education, higher education, health and human services, criminal and civil justice, transportation/tourism/economic development, and environmental and agricultural programs. Highlights included increased funding for school scholarships and safety, workforce and university programs, Medicaid and child welfare, corrections operations, affordable housing, rural communities, Everglades and water quality projects, and infrastructure. Members then asked detailed questions about several budget items. Senators sought clarification on the Emergency Management Trust Fund, arts and cultural grants, Florida Forever land acquisition versus conservation easements, teacher salaries, charter school capital outlay funding, EASE grants, New College funding, DOC inmate counts and reimbursement, lottery staffing, concealed weapons licensing positions, election security funding, iBudget waiver support, ADAP funding, Medicaid hospital rate reductions, and scholarship and enrollment supplements in K-12 education. Chairs explained that some reductions reflected technical shifts or right-sizing, that some funds were being moved below the line for better tracking, and that several items—such as ADAP and corrections operations—would likely remain conference issues with the House. After questions, the Senate substituted House bills for the budget and implementing measures and adopted amendments placing the Senate language onto the House vehicles to prepare for conference. The chamber passed the budget-related bills and several conforming measures, including bills on retirement, fuel taxes, the state agency law enforcement radio system, court trust funds, judgeships, and K-12 and higher education conforming changes. Votes on the major bills were overwhelmingly unanimous or near-unanimous, and the Senate repeatedly voted to accede to the House’s request for conference on the substituted bills.