Transcript Highlights:

• Then the second phase is the commission will come forward and perform an evaluation of those, and we
• again perform the research analysis in partnership with the Department of Revenue on those evaluations
• of those and we again perform evaluation of those and we again perform the<00:06:46.080> research
• <00:06:59.599> of<00:06:59.680> an<00:06:59.800> evaluation<00:07:00.479>
• of 30 plus evaluations of an evaluation of 30 plus evaluations of an evaluation of a<00:07:00.680

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met briefly to approve the January 16 minutes, then heard a series of informational presentations from legislative joint offices and commissions that fall under its jurisdiction. Michelle Urick of the Legislative Coordinating Commission explained the LCC’s governance structure, including its leadership-based membership and role overseeing joint offices such as the Legislative Auditor, Legislative Budget Office, Legislative Reference Library, Revisor of Statutes, and the LCC staff office itself. Christian Larson of the Legislative Budget Office described the office’s nonpartisan fiscal note work, local impact notes, and support for the Tax Expenditure Review Commission, noting the volume of requests it handles and that the office currently has 18 budgeted FTE. He also explained the LBO Oversight Commission’s role in setting standards and appointing the director. Elizabeth Lincoln of the Legislative Reference Library outlined the library’s services, including answering thousands of reference questions, maintaining state policy and legislative collections, archiving state documents, supporting the legislative website and search tools, and preserving House and Senate audio, video, and committee minutes. She also noted the library’s staffing levels and its move to the Capitol. In response to a question, she said copies of the book Minnesota Standoff were in constant circulation, that the title is out of print, and that the library had digitized it for use by legislators and staff. Ryan Inman, the Revisor of Statutes, described the office’s drafting, legal review, publication, IT, and other services. He said every bill introduced is reviewed by a Revisor attorney, the office publishes Laws of Minnesota, Minnesota Statutes, and Minnesota Rules, and it maintains the legislative drafting system now being replaced. He also discussed rule drafting for agencies, legal counsel, the claims subcommittee, court opinions reports, and the annual technical Revisor bill. Members asked about bill volume, amendment drafting, and the history of administrative rules review; Inman said the office is handling over 2,500 active bill requests and that a prior commission on administrative rules existed in the past. No votes were taken beyond approving the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• companies which both of us evaluation companies which both of us utilize<00:46:02.240> to<00:
• by an independent um evaluated by an independent um organization<00:58:09.240> to<00:58:09.400
• <01:39:28.679> of Include the assessment and evaluation of eligible blind students' reading
• unless it's ruled out by an evaluation unless it's ruled out by an evaluation so<01:43:38.639>
• to the IEP assessment or an evaluation to the IEP team<01:43:46.920> as<01:43:47.159> the<

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 627, which concerns Department of Education school safety funding and staffing. DOE said the bill would restore two positions and related funding that had been removed from the governor’s budget: a targeted violence prevention and threat assessment program manager and a security technology manager. DOE described ongoing work on school vulnerability assessments, fire suppression measures, security camera research, panic buttons, and active shooter prevention training. Testifiers from DOE, the Department of Law Enforcement, fire services, HSTA, and an individual witness all supported the bill, with the individual citing a past school shooting experience as a reason to increase school resource officers and safety measures. Members asked about the positions’ duties, how the request differed from existing security funding, and the status of active shooter training; DOE said it would provide more information on training statistics. The committee then took up HB 249, relating to Executive Office on Early Learning family child interaction learning programs. The Early Learning Board, EOEL, Commit to Kids, Early Childhood Action Strategies, Partners in Development Foundation, and others testified in support. EOEL said it currently spends about $800,000 annually on FCI program contracts and supports expanding state funding for FCIL programs, including infant and early childhood mental health, if the appropriation covers the broader scope. Testifiers emphasized that FCIL programs are trauma-informed, evidence-based, and help families and children, with one provider sharing a long-term example of a parent and child benefiting from the program. Members asked how many programs are supported, whether FCIL exists on all islands, and whether the request was in the governor’s budget; EOEL said the expansion was requested by the office but not included in the governor’s budget. HB 429, concerning pre-K expansion, drew broad support from the Lieutenant Governor, EOEL, HSTA, and community groups. Supporters said the Ready Keiki initiative has already opened more than 50 classrooms and would add another 50 over the next two years, including Hawaiian immersion classrooms. EOEL said it currently administers 72 public pre-K classrooms across 74 campuses and that the bill’s funding was included in the governor’s budget request. Testimony stressed kindergarten readiness, affordability for working families, equity across islands, and inclusion classrooms. Members asked about national quality benchmarks, with EOEL stating Hawaii meets 10 of 10 benchmarks and that only five states had done so at the time referenced. The Lieutenant Governor also described construction and delivery efforts, including refurbishing existing classrooms, modular options, possible use of state buildings, and even collaboration with libraries to expand child care access. Finally, the committee heard HB 439 on J-1 teacher licensure. DOE supported the bill, while the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board opposed it, arguing licensure standards are not place-based and should remain rigorous and uniform for all educators. The Attorney General’s office offered technical comments, including replacing “educators” with “teacher” and clarifying the bill’s language on issuance and renewal conditions. Several organizations and individuals testified in support, including school, cultural, business, and educator groups. One witness, a teacher from the Philippines, said J-1 educators are highly qualified and described the rigor of teacher preparation in the Philippines. No votes were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• That would give us as a committee an ability to evaluate what we're looking at.
• That would give us as a committee an ability to evaluate what we're looking at.
• That would give us as a committee an ability to evaluate what we're looking at. Not in some cases.
• That would give us as a committee an ability to evaluate what we're looking at.
• That would give us as a committee an ability to evaluate what we're looking at.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee convened for an opening discussion of the 2025 Human Services session, with members emphasizing bipartisan collaboration, the committee’s mission to strengthen support systems for Minnesotans, and a focus on helping vulnerable people thrive. The chair and members welcomed new and returning senators and staff, including new pages and interim committee administration, and several members briefly introduced themselves and their backgrounds in public service and human services work. Members identified the main issues they expect to address this session: workforce shortages in human services professions, long-term care, program integrity, and efforts to limit waste, fraud, and abuse so funding reaches people who need it most. The chair also previewed upcoming hearings on eligibility and redeterminations for people with disabilities, MnCHOICES reassessments, assisted living and provider payment delays, and updates on direct care and treatment, noting that more detailed discussion would come in later meetings. The committee then received a budget overview from fiscal analyst Kyle Raymond. He explained the combined Health and Human Services budget area, noted jurisdiction changes tied to the creation of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families and the planned separation of Direct Care and Treatment, and said some figures may differ from the November forecast because of those shifts. He outlined the major funding sources for the budget area, including federal funds and the general fund, and said the presentation would focus on the fiscal year 2026-2027 budget the legislature will be considering.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:48:40.800> of about cases based on my evaluation of about cases based on my evaluation
• I'm available for questions evaluations.
• Um so many revisited or uh re-evaluated.
• are the only ones that can currently evaluate the appropriateness of a sentence.
• ones that can currently evaluate the appropriateness of a sentence.

Bills: HB1531

Keywords: emergency announcements, American Sign Language, accessibility, public safety, broadcast media, 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1913, which would create a mental health coordinator position within the Office of Veteran Services for the Daniel K. Akaka State Veterans Home and appropriate funds for it. Supporters said veterans, especially on the neighbor islands, need more mental health access and coordination. Several witnesses, including Sean Sonatada and Tom Driscoll, supported the intent but urged amendments to broaden the position beyond one facility and make it a statewide resource. Committee members questioned whether the bill would duplicate existing services at the veterans home and whether the position would be reimbursable through federal VA funding; testimony indicated the state would appropriate the money, while existing home services are already covered through current staff and federal reimbursement structures. The committee also heard testimony on House Bill 9, which would designate Hawaii as a Purple Heart state. Testifiers generally supported the measure as a way to honor wounded veterans and their families, though one member asked what benefits the designation would confer. Witnesses clarified that the bill was mainly symbolic and did not appear to create new benefits, and one testifier noted Honolulu County had already adopted a similar Purple Heart designation. The committee then took up House Bill 1628, which would establish a compassionate release protocol for certain seriously ill or debilitated incarcerated persons. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Hawaii Paroling Authority opposed the bill, arguing that an existing administrative process already works, that the bill could improperly extend eligibility to people serving life without parole or mandatory minimum sentences, and that it lacked victim and family input and sufficient resources. In contrast, the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission strongly supported the bill, saying it would reduce the high cost of incarcerating people with complex medical needs, ease burdens on staff and the prison population, and better reflect human dignity. The commission described having seen severe suffering and deaths in custody and said compassionate release is warranted in some cases. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• They can figure out an evaluation measure. That was really all I had to say on this bill.
• They can figure out an evaluation measures. That was really all I had to say on this bill.
• I think there's ways to do this when we're looking at evaluation measures, and nothing is going to be
• Representative, the evaluation measure in the bill for this is to look at the multiplier—the multiplier
• So I think we need to look at different kinds of ways to evaluate, and I think this is a good deal.

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:

• And then also discuss the importance of evaluating any application they receive, how it aligns with their
• :22:49.679> the<00:22:49.919> importance<00:22:50.480> of<00:22:51.679> evaluating
• <00:22:52.640> any discuss the importance of evaluating any discuss the importance of evaluating
• 00:23:33.679> annually development board is uh annually development board is uh annually evaluating
• what is part of the the cape evaluating what is part of the the cape program<00:23:39.039> as

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:04 Approval of Minutes 00:36 KOAP Report 00:51, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the June 12 minutes, and then received a presentation from Brandon Reid and Bill McCloskkey of the Agricultural Development Board on the June report and the 25th anniversary of the Agricultural Development Fund. They described a joint anniversary meeting held at the Kentucky Historical Society, thanked staff, and noted that the board presented members with a token of appreciation. They also reported a clean annual audit, with the audit report to be shared more fully at a later meeting. The presenters reviewed June activity and funding decisions, saying the development board approved about $3.3 million and the finance board about $5 million in loans. They highlighted program activity such as advisory council meetings, site visits, project reports, and county comprehensive plans. Specific projects discussed included the Food Chain project, which sought support for equipment and improvements to expand Kentucky product marketing; Miller Rockbridge Farms LLC, which sought county support for a barn for an education program; and Thompson Family Farm LLC, which sought funding for a livestock buying station. The board approved reduced or county-only funding in some cases, including $45,643 for the Food Chain project and county money for the farm projects. Members asked about the meaning and purpose of the county comprehensive plans and how counties use them to guide funding decisions. The presenters explained that House Bill 611 created a structure in which each county council develops a comprehensive plan, updated on a five-year cycle, to prioritize local agricultural investments and evaluate applications. They said county councils work with extension agents and the Agricultural Development Office, and that staff attend meetings, provide training, and help new agents and council members understand the program. Members emphasized that the planning process helps ensure funds are targeted to local needs and supports diversification of agriculture beyond tobacco.

Transcript Highlights:

• The department uses information from surveys, focus groups, program evaluation and monitoring, the availability
• 00:05:52.240> program from surveys focus groups program from surveys focus groups program evaluation
• and monitoring and uh the evaluation and monitoring and uh the availability<00:05:55.880> of<
• would go out and investigate and try to link those individuals with services within the community, evaluate
• that um we've been um we've evaluating that um we've been um we've been<00:30:30.640> doing<00

Keywords: Meeting Concurrently w/ (H) Families & Children, 958, all

Summary: The committee met to hear the 2025 Social Services Block Grant preliminary plan from the Department for Community Based Services. Commissioner Lisa Dennis and Executive Adviser Mary Carpenter described DCBS’s mission and explained that the federal block grant, about $21 million annually, supports Adult Protective Services, Child Protective Services, Home Safety Services, Juvenile Services, Residential Treatment Services, and staff training. They said most of the funding goes to staff and training, and that the department uses surveys, focus groups, program monitoring, funding availability, and historical data to set annual goals. They also noted that Kentucky uses the grant to fund direct services and that eligibility is generally limited to Kentucky residents or runaway juveniles based on need and available resources. Much of the discussion focused on child welfare data and the distinction between poverty and neglect. DCBS officials said Adult Protective Services investigates abuse, neglect, and exploitation of vulnerable adults, and that self-neglect cases have trended down in recent years, which they attributed in part to access to federal resources. For Child Protective Services, they reviewed intake and investigation numbers, noting that many calls screen out before meeting statutory criteria, while about 48,000 cases were assessed or investigated and about 8,000 were substantiated. Members raised concerns about how poverty can be mistaken for neglect, especially in rural areas, and DCBS said it has been working with the legislature, staff, and community partners to better define the difference and connect families to community supports when cases do not meet abuse or neglect criteria. Members also asked about the risk to federal funding and the impact on juvenile services. DCBS said it had not received notice that the $21 million block grant would be cut, but it is monitoring federal developments closely and would need to return to the General Assembly for a budget request if funding were lost. The department said about 30% of the federal share goes to juvenile services. Questions also covered the transition in staff training from Eastern Kentucky University to a broader statewide model, and the agency said it is expanding training opportunities and modernizing delivery. Officials discussed the MST pilot for youth, saying it is a successful evidence-based practice operating in three regions—Jefferson, Northern Bluegrass, and Central Kentucky—with positive outcomes and possible expansion. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are a lot of metrics that we use in terms of evaluating. Service quality.
• So these are the kinds of metrics that go into evaluating broadband.
• The legislature's actions appear to be guided by regular evaluation of progress and of need.
• of a 2019 law which established the Governor's Broadband Development Council and directed it to evaluate
• Currently, we have 11 members providing retail broadband and others are evaluating the possibility.

Transcript Highlights:

• The administration has carefully evaluated existing behavioral health programs supported by General Fund
• Our role is to bring transparency, evaluation, data-informed policy recommendations, grant making, and
• Our role is to bring transparency, evaluation, data-informed policy recommendations, grant making, and
• CDPH is required to, in consultation with stakeholders, develop a template to collect and evaluate data
• HCAI is in the process of evaluating and scoring these applications over the next week based on severity

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health heard presentations on several May Revision proposals, beginning with an overview from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance on the state’s budget condition and the administration’s efforts to reduce out-year deficits through a mix of revenue measures, fund shifts, and program reductions. The chair expressed support for some administration proposals, such as added health IT funding, county administration support, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some immigrants, and additional Covered California subsidy backfill, but also criticized proposed Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other cuts affecting counties, workforce, and rural access. The LAO said the budget still relies heavily on reserves and borrowing and urged more reserves and caution on new commitments. The Department of State Hospitals presented several proposals, including reduced county bed billing authority, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscriptions, reversion of unspent prior-year funds, additional lease revenue authority for the Metro Central Utility Plant replacement, funding for electronic health record implementation, and a shift of workforce development costs to Behavioral Health Services Act funds. The department also described savings and realignments in its IST and CONREP programs, including making the Independent Placement Panel permanent and adjusting funding for jail-based competency treatment and conditional release services. Members questioned the BHSA workforce funding swap, and the administration said it was part of a broader General Fund offset strategy. The Emergency Medical Services Authority requested funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for continued operation of its enterprise systems, and the Department of Managed Health Care sought funds to modernize its complaint system and claims settlement data systems. The largest debate centered on the administration’s proposed use of Behavioral Health Services Act revenues to offset General Fund spending and fund state-directed behavioral health programs. The Department of Finance said the proposal would support population-based prevention, workforce programs, mobile crisis services, and other state-directed uses, while the LAO said it was still reviewing whether the uses comply with Proposition 1 and whether the non-supplement and eligible-use requirements are met. The Commission for Behavioral Health strongly opposed proposed cuts to its Innovation Partnership Fund and community advocacy grants, arguing that both programs are central to community voice, culturally responsive services, and statewide innovation. Commissioners and many public commenters said the cuts would reduce grants to community-based organizations, tribal groups, veterans, LGBTQ communities, youth, and other underserved populations, and that the advocacy program helps communities participate in local planning and access services. The Department of Finance defended the reductions as a way to prioritize direct services and said the programs fit within Proposition 1, but members criticized the proposal as a midstream shift that would weaken community engagement and redirect funds away from prevention and advocacy.

Transcript Highlights:

• The administration has carefully evaluated existing behavioral health programs supported by General Fund
• The administration has carefully evaluated existing behavioral health programs supported by General Fund
• Our role is to bring transparency, evaluation, data-informed policy recommendations, grant making, and
• CDPH is required to, in consultation with stakeholders, develop a template to collect and evaluate data
• CDPH is required to, in consultation with stakeholders, develop a template to collect and evaluate data

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• but test is the still evaluating but test is the transfer<00:39:49.160> equivalency<00:39:50.160
• <01:00:01.200> the we began last year to to evaluate the we began last year to to evaluate
• over the next few months to evaluate over the next few months to evaluate what<01:00:44.079>
• We are not working with the community college system on evaluating footprint.
• <01:18:44.639> footprint college system on evaluating footprint college system on evaluating

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Public Higher Education Study Committee held an organizational meeting and received an update from the university and community college systems on implementation of recommendations from the governor’s higher education task force. The systems said the task force report contained about 40 recommendations, and they have focused first on operational items while continuing to work on larger policy issues, including better alignment of public higher education with workforce and economic development needs. The committee also discussed reporting requirements under the amended law and whether quarterly reports are required or whether annual updates are sufficient unless the committee requests more. A major topic was expanding Early College and dual-enrollment opportunities. The chancellors reported strong growth in Early College participation, significant student and family savings, and state scholarship support that they described as producing a strong return on investment. They said the goal is to build clearer pathways so students can earn college credit, reduce debt, and stay in New Hampshire for postsecondary education. They also noted ongoing work to simplify admissions and transfer processes, including about 100 transfer pathways between the systems, direct-admit efforts for community college and university students, and continued development of transfer equivalency tools. Members pressed the systems and the Department of Education on direct outreach to high school students, especially juniors, so students would know they are eligible for direct admission and other opportunities. The main obstacle discussed was access to student contact information, with officials saying the issue may involve contract limits with the College Board and possibly statutory constraints on sharing data. Department of Education staff said they are meeting with the systems and vendors to determine what changes are needed. Committee members urged faster action so students and families can receive letters or other notices about in-state options, affordability programs such as Granite Guarantee, and pathways to community college and university enrollment.

Transcript Highlights:

• I did receive a call from a parent who explained that his son was given a psych evaluation in school
• The little boy had to go down and get a Band-Aid, and his son was given a psych evaluation.
• They did a psych evaluation on his son in a school, and now that is technically information.
• in school and given a psych evaluation in school and that<00:32:21.000> he<00:32:21.120> was
• evaluation evaluation um<00:32:49.919> I<00:32:50.080> put<00:32:50.360> that<00

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What are the measurable outcomes we should use to evaluate the program in the short and long term?
• What are the measurable outcomes we should use to evaluate the program in the short and long term?
• finally, how often should the administration and the Legislature be looking at these programs to evaluate
• This also raises the question of what criteria should be used for these evaluations.
• All right, we’re going to go to panel three: defensible space evaluation of current programs and proposed

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation tools, with members and witnesses emphasizing that California’s wildfire losses, insurance costs, and affordability pressures require a broader strategy than the status quo. The chair framed the issue as a tipping point for the state and asked witnesses to discuss how to scale mitigation, improve coordination, and make programs more effective and sustainable. Early testimony from the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety explained how embers, flames, structure density, and combustible materials drive community conflagrations, and described the IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home standards, including a base “Prepared” level and an enhanced level. IBHS said California is ahead of other states but still needs standardized, verified mitigation, and noted research suggesting home hardening can reduce losses and improve insurability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office highlighted key policy questions for lawmakers, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. Members pressed for practical, lower-cost approaches, and witnesses repeatedly stressed that the first five feet around a home is critical, that many mitigation steps are DIY or relatively low-cost, and that financing will be necessary because many homeowners cannot afford full retrofits. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption challenge, not something the state can fully pay for, and recommended a blended model of education, low-interest loans, smaller grants, and insurance discounts to drive mass adoption. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council and Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described local programs using assessments, neighborhood-based Firewise efforts, grants, and resident participation, while also calling for better marketing, clearer standards, workforce development, and stronger links between mitigation and insurance benefits. In the later panels, Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal described the state’s layered approach: parcel-level hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation. Cal Fire said its defensible space inspection program needs ongoing funding and staffing to remain permanent, and the LAO said the proposal has merit but could be modified depending on budget conditions and alternative funding sources. Cal Fire also described a forthcoming defensible space financial assistance program focused on Zone Zero and vulnerable communities, estimating about $8,000 per home and roughly 3,125 homes served with the proposed funding. The State Fire Marshal clarified that local Zone Zero ordinances cannot be less restrictive than state minimum standards, though local governments have flexibility above that floor. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses returned to the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, consistent standards, targeted incentives, and sustained funding to move from pilot efforts to mass adoption.

Transcript Highlights:

• They're asking to re-evaluate the priorities and actually start maintaining the roads in Colorado, 47th
• They're asking to re-evaluate<00:50:14.640> the<00:50:14.880> priorities<00:50:15.760><
• c> and<00:50:16.079> actually re-evaluate the priorities and actually re-evaluate the priorities
• <00:52:32.960> the<00:52:33.200> priorities, saying re-evaluate the priorities, saying
• Why the Transportation Commission is not re-evaluating and prioritizing maintenance of our system for

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The Senate convened, established a quorum, approved the February 13, 2026 journal, and then took up several resolutions and bills. Senate Joint Resolution 12, designating February 20, 2026 as Colorado FFA Day, was laid over until that date. On the consent calendar, Senate Bill 74, concerning the penalty for claiming an excessive amount in a public construction performance bond dispute, passed third reading unanimously, 30-0. The chamber then passed Senate Bill 16, which prohibits the discharge of pre-production plastic materials, on third reading and final passage by a vote of 19-11. Senate Bill 34, expanding participation by members of the AARIA Board of Directors advisory committees, also passed 19-11. On second reading, the Committee of the Whole considered Senate Bill 11, dealing with search warrant requirements for operators of certain electronic platforms, and Senate Bill 76, concerning the practice of certified public accountants; the committee adopted the report, with SB 11 amended and SB 76 passed and ordered engrossed. The general order calendar was then laid over until February 18, 2026. A major portion of the meeting focused on Senate Resolution 001, which urges CDOT to prioritize road improvement projects in Morgan County. Supporters argued that Morgan County’s state highways are in poor condition, citing assessments showing 70% of the county’s highway miles have low drivability life and stressing the importance of safe roads for agriculture and commerce. Opponents said the resolution resembled a district-specific funding request and argued transportation dollars should be allocated through existing statewide and regional processes rather than by legislative resolution. Despite the debate, the discussion centered on the broader need to improve road maintenance and transportation safety across rural Colorado.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a process of evaluation. Data centers have to be located if it's a large data center.
• ,<00:16:03.120> that's half long process of evaluation, that's half long process of evaluation
• They start calling the Economic Development Cabinet to evaluate where they might invest in the state.
• 54.000> development<00:23:54.320> cabinet<00:23:54.720> to<00:23:54.960> evaluate
• economic development cabinet to evaluate economic development cabinet to evaluate uh<00:23:56.159

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Artificial Intelligence Task Force held its third meeting and adopted the prior minutes after a motion and second. The main presentation came from John Bevington of LG&E and KU, who described the utility’s Kentucky service territory, its vertically integrated operations, and its role in economic development. He said the company supported 76 projects in 2024, representing about $3 billion in announced investment and roughly 3,000 jobs, and noted that about 45% of statewide investment announcements were in its service area. He also outlined a large project pipeline of about 8.5 gigawatts, with data centers making up roughly two-thirds of that interest. Bevington explained that data center siting differs from traditional manufacturing site selection because it is driven primarily by transmission access and grid capacity rather than a process of eliminating locations. He said large data centers must locate near transmission lines, that utilities must conduct formal studies to ensure existing customers are not harmed, and that the buildout timeline for utility infrastructure is much longer than for data centers. He cited a Deloitte study and other industry data to argue that power constraints and timeline mismatches are the biggest challenges, while also emphasizing that data centers can generate significant construction activity, indirect jobs, and tax revenue. He said Kentucky’s sales tax exemption for data centers was a key enabler that increased interest in the state. Members asked about the number and size of potential data center projects, how Kentucky compares with other states, and whether regulatory reform is needed. Bevington said the 20 projects in Kentucky reflect current interest, that other states such as Ohio have had similar incentives for years, and that Kentucky is still early in the market. He also said data centers can vary in size, from 200 to 600 megawatts or more, and that they can be located anywhere with sufficient transmission capacity and, in some cases, access to workforce and roads. In response to concerns about energy supply, he said LG&E and KU are pursuing an “all of the above” strategy, including solar, batteries, and new natural gas combined-cycle units, and noted ongoing and proposed projects totaling additional capacity if approved by the Public Service Commission.

Transcript Highlights:

• systems to select an independent third party to complete an investment practices and performance evaluation
• House Bill 3474, relating to the evaluation and reporting of investment practices and performance of
• House Bill 3474, relating to the evaluation and reporting of investment practices and performance of
• transparency and accountability with the addition of incident reporting requirements. continuous evaluation
• Last session, we passed Senate Bill 593, which mandated an independent third-party audit to evaluate

Bills: SB203, SB317, SB397, SB511, SB524, SB731, SB781, SB801, SB867, SB1071, SB1087, SB1232, SB1444, SB1483, SB1782, SB1798, SB1861, SB1944, SB2082, SB2233, SB2309, SB2363, SB2497, SB2549, SB2566, SB2603, SB2607, SB2617, SB2688, SB2717, SB2797, SB2841, SB2919, SB2928, SB2969, SB3063, HB12, HB26, HB33, HB34, HB45, HB48, HB130, HB148, HB198, HB431, HB647, HB668, HB677, HB748, HB754, HB791, HB1022, HB1193, HB1240, HB1242, HB1318, HB1397, HB1520, HB1584, HB1729, HB1922, HB1950, HB2003, HB2027, HB2029, HB2254, HB2350, HB2559, HB2607, HB2663, HB2712, HB2768, HB2775, HB2788, HB2789, HB2802, HB2894, HB2960, HB3033, HB3041, HB3126, HB3228, HB3229, HB3474, HB3560, HB3594, HB3611, HB3698, HB3699, HB3700, HB3805, HB4187, HB4219, HB4238, HB4344, HB4384, HB4739, HB4753, HB4804, HB4850, HB4885, HB5560, HCR90, SJR34, SB529, SB541, SB693, SB963, SB1173, SB1241, SB1383, SB1559, SB1646, SB1734, SB1833, SB1883, SB1968, SB2544, SB1, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB2308, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR60, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB2309, SB1861, SB2617, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB511, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB1749, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1782, SB1944, SB1232, SB2969, SB2497, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB781, SB524, SB2233, SB2683, SB1319, SB1978, SB3038, SB3045, SB1633, SB1538, SB719, SB3071, HB1393, HB2559, HB26, HB2607, HB3810, HB388, HB12, HB2712, HB1633, HB1318, HB685, HB4753, HB198, HB762, HB148, HB1520, HB2286, HB1606, HB132, HB45, HB48, HB33, HB1022, HB1458, HB5560, HB1240, HB1950, HB2027, HB2768, HB2788, HB2791, HB3146, HB3698, HB3699, HB1893, HB3700, HB4850, HB4187, HB1397, HB4885, HB4804, HB3751, HB3611, HB2775, HB2061, HB2003, HB1729, HB1242, HB791, HB2029, HB647, HB2522, HB4738, HB3033, HB3594, HB3474, HB2563, HB2802, HB34, HB128, HB130, HB581, HB668, HB677, HB766, HB2259, HB2960, HB2358, HB2894, HB4384, HB2663, HB748, HB793, HB1193, HB1734, HB2340, HB2350, HB3104, HB5180, HB4739, HB1584, HB4344, HB4238, HB4219, HB3806, HB3805, HB3804, HB3803, HB3229, HB3228, HB1922, HB1522, HB431, HB3597, HB1612, HB4224, HB754, HB1314, HB2254, HB2789, HB3560, HB4643, HB1237, HB3126, HB2856, HB3114, HB3041, HB3505, HB4205, HB5652, HB3687, HB5424, HB4506, HB3370, HB2025, HB4273, HB3395, HB3376, HB2733, HB2495, HB4325, HB2071, HB2510, HB138, HB18, HB107, HB694, HB923, HB1639, HB1700, HB2187, HB3211, HB4529, HB4655, HB5342, HB2516, HB4783, HB1894, HB1965, HB102, HB300, HB1875, HB2513, HB2713, HB39, HB114, HB24, HB3088, HB4163, HB3479, HB2842, HB519, HB609, HB1275, HB1592, HB3348, HCR90, HCR98, SB524, SB781, SB1782, SB2497, SB2969, HB12, HB33, HB34, HB45, HB48, HB130, HB148, HB198, HB431, HB668, HB677, HB754, HB791, HB1022, HB1193, HB1242, HB1318, HB1520, HB1729, HB1922, HB1950, HB2003, HB2027, HB2029, HB2559, HB2607, HB2663, HB2768, HB2775, HB2789, HB2802, HB2894, HB2960, HB3041, HB3228, HB3229, HB3474, HB3560, HB3594, HB3611, HB3698, HB3699, HB3700, HB3805, HB4238, HB4344, HB4739, HB4804, HB4885, HB5560, SB1861, SB2309, SB2617, SB511, SR545, HJR47, HB75, HB108, HB111, HB521, HB1052, HB1249, HB1373, HB1403, HB1449, HB1586, HB1629, HB1646, HB1794, HB1820, HB1831, HB1845, HB1939, HB1960, HB1991, HB2014, HB2080, HB2136, HB2159, HB2293, HB2313, HB2399, HB2512, HB2581, HB2593, HB2621, HB2638, HB2655, HB2658, HB2694, HB2731, HB2757, HB2803, HB2807, HB2814, HB2844, HB2999, HB3053, HB3142, HB3171, HB3234, HB3254, HB3320, HB3349, HB3405, HB3420, HB3463, HB3516, HB3520, HB3631, HB3679, HB3680, HB3694, HB3722, HB3732, HB3749, HB3793, HB3833, HB3928, HB3977, HB4014, HB4042, HB4076, HB4099, HB4105, HB4112, HB4158, HB4204, HB4207, HB4234, HB4449, HB4454, HB4520, HB4535, HB4559, HB4582, HB4630, HB4669, HB4748, HB4795, HB4847, HB4848, HB4916, HB4924, HB5093, HB5302, HB5509, HB5624, HB5627, HB5629, HB5632, HB5639, HB5664, HB5693, HB5698, HB2851, HB5154, HB5339, HJR47, HB75, HB108, HB111, HB521, HB1052, HB1249, HB1373, HB1403, HB1449, HB1586, HB1629, HB1646, HB1794, HB1820, HB1831, HB1845, HB1939, HB1960, HB1991, HB2014, HB2080, HB2136, HB2159, HB2293, HB2313, HB2399, HB2512, HB2581, HB2593, HB2621, HB2638, HB2655, HB2658, HB2694, HB2731, HB2757, HB2803, HB2807, HB2814, HB2844, HB2999, HB3053, HB3142, HB3171, HB3234, HB3254, HB3320, HB3349, HB3405, HB3420, HB3463, HB3516, HB3520, HB3631, HB3679, HB3680, HB3694, HB3722, HB3732, HB3749, HB3793, HB3833, HB3928, HB3977, HB4014, HB4042, HB4076, HB4099, HB4105, HB4112, HB4158, HB4204, HB4207, HB4234, HB4449, HB4454, HB4520, HB4535, HB4559, HB4582, HB4630, HB4669, HB4748, HB4795, HB4847, HB4848, HB4916, HB4924, HB5093, HB5302, HB5509, HB5624, HB5627, HB5629, HB5632, HB5639, HB5664, HB5693, HB5698, HB2851, HB5154, HB5339

Keywords: student privacy, numerical class rank, education policy, academic programs, high school, monuments, memorials, public property, historical significance, civil penalties, local governance, SB 397, telemedicine, telehealth, teledentistry, remote care, virtual care, consent documentation, patient consent, data collection

Transcript Highlights:

• as you are again evaluating these rates? as you are again evaluating these rates?
• Is that something that the department evaluates as well? >> Sure, Chair Koegel.
• So we do evaluate that as well.
• that the department evaluates as well? that the department evaluates as well?
• And again, um, evaluate that as well.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• of the bigger projects or things that might raise a red flag to them to delve into it and do an evaluation
• evaluation for every program<01:12:58.880> but<01:12:59.440> um<01:12:59.520> the
• Yes: we would be producing a strategic plan and a program evaluation, I believe is how it's phrased,
• program evaluation for every program. program evaluation for every program.
• <01:52:56.560> it goes through the process to evaluate it goes through the process to evaluate

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 74, which would require state agencies, especially the Department of Environmental Services and other permitting agencies, to report more detailed data on permit applications, approvals, denials, pending applications, and permits taking longer than 90 days. The sponsor’s representative and a lawyer who helped draft the bill argued that the legislature needs comprehensive permitting data to evaluate whether current timelines are reasonable and whether regulatory delays are burdening property owners and economic activity. They said the information should already be tracked within existing budgets, despite a fiscal note claiming additional staff would be needed. A Business and Industry Association representative supported the bill, saying better data is needed to understand actual permitting timelines and to help streamline the process, especially in light of housing and development concerns. Members asked whether the bill was simply collecting data without a clear next step, and the response was that the data would allow lawmakers to judge whether existing deadlines, extensions, and exemptions are justified and whether changes to permit timelines are needed. Several members agreed the information would be useful and that agencies should already be tracking it. The committee then voted to pass Senate Bill 74 on a roll call, with the motion approved and the bill placed on consent for further consideration, with a note that it would go to finance for review of the fiscal note. The committee then took up Senate Bill 196, which would raise the threshold for certain in-house construction projects handled by the Department of Military Affairs and Veterans Services and two other departments from $500,000 to $1 million, described as an inflationary update. The sponsor said the department’s existing staff can handle these smaller renovation-type projects and that the bill should not require new positions; the deputy adjutant general later confirmed the department does not need additional staff and said the projects are typically roof, boiler, and similar repairs. Members asked about a fiscal note suggesting new positions and about revenue/expenditure impacts, and the sponsor explained that the fiscal note language appeared to reflect an earlier draft and that the budget effect is largely a shift in where the work is performed. The committee recessed briefly for the deputy adjutant general’s arrival, then continued discussion of the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think we have some data needs that we would need to evaluate, and I know that it probably would require
• June draft agenda, I just have two items based on that discussion: the preliminary 2025 actuarial evaluation
• I mean, I have no idea how much time the evaluation will take.
• So would you state the agenda is to include three items: preliminary 2025 actuarial evaluation, an update

Summary: The Executive Committee approved the April minutes by roll call vote, with members present voting aye and the minutes adopted. The committee then received an Attorney General update on several pension-related cases. Counsel discussed the newly filed Dawson class action, which seeks to invalidate Gross Second Substitute House Bill 2034 on federal and state constitutional grounds; she said the pleadings were unclear, the committee’s involvement was uncertain, and the case would need monitoring. She also reported that the Dolan case appears concluded after the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling on constructive payment of attorney fees, and that the Fowler case remains pending after an oral ruling for plaintiffs on retroactive interest and possible disgorgement of state gains, with a written ruling still awaited. The actuarial update said June would include the preliminary 2025 valuation results and contribution-rate discussion, along with commentary on the demographic experience study, and staff noted actuarial resources were limited for additional items until later in the summer or fall. The committee then discussed the interim work plan and correspondence, including letters supporting a Plan 1 COLA recommendation, retiree organization comments, and a request from Senator Robinson to study whether certain animal control technicians should be included in PERS. Members emphasized the need to keep working on an ad hoc COLA for Plan 1 retirees while also exploring a longer-term COLA mechanism, including possible budget proviso language to require COLA consideration each budget cycle. Staff also explained changes to correspondence handling: materials will no longer be posted publicly on the website, but will still be available through public records requests and distributed securely to members by email or form submission. The committee agreed to add a June briefing on the PERS animal control technician issue and an introductory discussion of Plan 3, and to bring back COLA proposals in July for further executive committee review. The agenda was approved as amended, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• regarding policy changes, resource allocations, identification of racial or systematic disparities, and evaluation
• identification of racial or systematic disparities, disparities, disparities, and<00:09:29.000> evaluation
• of<00:09:29.640> the<00:09:29.720> effectiveness<00:09:30.200> of and evaluation
• of the effectiveness of and evaluation of the effectiveness of the<00:09:30.360> programs,<00

Keywords: 927, senate, all