Transcript Highlights:

• As you know, TDCJ is currently undergoing Sunset review.
• , the review took a look at rehabilitation programming.
• We have conducted yearly about 66,000 parole reviews.
• Of these reviews, 4,500 involved a third consecutive parole review. Let me share one case with you.
• Notification of a review comes months before the review, forcing us to relive the trauma of Nancy's crime

Bills: SB552 , SB1099 , SB1124 , SB1208 , SB1372 , SB1506 , SB1667 , SB1804 , SB1806 , SB1870 , SB1936 , SB1937 , SB2180 , SB2405 , SB2569 , SB2570 , SB1646

Committee: Senate Criminal Justice

Summary: The committee heard a series of criminal justice bills, beginning with SB 1870 and SB 1727, both of which were adopted as committee substitutes and reported favorably to the full Senate. SB 1870 would bar local governments from adopting policies that decriminalize controlled substances or direct officials not to enforce state drug laws, with civil penalties enforced by the Attorney General for violations. SB 1727 was described as a technical change to make the draft a formal Legislative Council version of a TDCJ-related assault bill; both bills were also sent to the local and uncontested calendar. The committee then took up SB 2405, the major Sunset bill for TDCJ, the Board of Pardons and Paroles, Windham School District, and the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee. Senator Parker explained that the bill continues and modernizes those agencies, requires a 10-year facilities and staffing plan, expands rehabilitation and reentry programming, improves parole-board consistency and training, and codifies various cleanup and inspector general recommendations. Sunset staff and agency witnesses discussed the bill’s data-sharing, program coordination, and projected savings from reducing delays in parole-voted programming; public witnesses generally supported the post-secondary education and reentry provisions, while some urged stronger statutory direction for Windham and more reform to medically recommended intensive supervision. The bill was left pending. SB 1804, SB 1099, SB 2569, and SB 2570 were also heard. SB 1804 would allow restitution for tattoo removal for human trafficking survivors and remove the age restriction so adult survivors can qualify; it was reported favorably and sent to the local calendar. SB 1099 would increase penalties for certain felony offenses when committed by a person determined to be unlawfully present in the country; immigration and civil rights witnesses opposed it as overbroad and difficult to administer, but it was reported favorably. SB 2569 would modernize unmanned aircraft reporting by requiring law enforcement agencies to post reports on public websites; it passed unanimously and was sent to the local calendar. SB 2570 would create a defense to prosecution for peace officers and correctional guards using less-lethal force weapons within the scope of their training; law enforcement witnesses supported it, civil rights and prosecutor witnesses raised concerns that it was too broad and could weaken existing use-of-force standards, and the bill was left pending for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• What employment matters are reviewed at the board level. currently reviewed at the regents level.
• This is a core curriculum reviewed by a member of component institutions at A&M. Do you know?
• Okay, I'd ask you to kind of review it.
• The section 51.315 is the section on the General Education Review Committee.
• General Educational Review Committee.

Bills: SB37 , SB1489 , SB452 , SB724 , SB1067 , SB1741 , SB1273 , SB 37

Committees: Senate Education , Senate Education K-16

Transcript Highlights:

• offices for review and investigation.
• I joined EHS to spearhead the interagency review team process.
• the definition for a complex case and the processes for referral to and review by the interagency review
• In conjunction with the reviews, the IRT has access to funding.
• Finally, we review foster care, review safety alerts, as well as supported reports of abuse and neglect

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities

Summary: The hearing was an informational and oversight session of the Joint Committee on Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities, with chairs and members hearing agency updates from several commissioners. The Department of Public Health’s Bureau of Family Health and Nutrition described its maternal and child health work, including home visiting, early intervention, WIC, newborn hearing screening, and cross-agency efforts on prenatal substance exposure, respite care, children’s vision, and maternal health initiatives. DPH emphasized that federal grant cuts, layoffs, and the loss of data systems such as PRAMS would weaken services and planning, and members asked about Title V funding and the impact of federal uncertainty. The Massachusetts Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing highlighted communication access services, interpreter and CART referrals, emergency after-hours support, family navigation, and independent living services. Commissioners and members discussed the shortage of ASL interpreters and the need to expand training pipelines, including partnerships with colleges and possible ASL programming for younger students. The Department of Developmental Services reported serving nearly 50,000 people and focused on youth and adult services, transition-age supports, autism services, self-direction, respite, and new high-acuity residential models. Members asked about respite availability, self-direction outcomes, and workforce shortages; DDS said it was expanding clinical capacity and provider rates while monitoring possible federal Medicaid, SNAP, and immigration-related impacts. The Commission for the Blind described services for about 28,000 legally blind residents, most of whom are older adults, including social rehabilitation, orientation and mobility training, children’s services, assistive technology, vocational rehabilitation, and Turning 22 supports. The commissioner discussed a UMass-based effort to build the workforce pipeline for blindness services and said the agency was watching federal restructuring but had not yet seen direct cuts. MassAbility’s leadership then warned about major federal changes affecting Social Security disability determinations, including staff restructuring, office closures, and a new overpayment repayment policy, and said the agency was preparing for possible increases in claims and uncertainty around reallotment dollars that help fund services. The Disabled Persons Protection Commission closed the hearing with an update on its abuse investigations and protective services for adults with disabilities. DPPC reported rising hotline calls and investigations, a growing caseload, its sexual assault response team, the abuser registry, and a new interagency protective services integration system funded by ARPA dollars through 2027. The agency also flagged new federal rules that could affect funding eligibility and said it may need statutory changes to comply. Members asked about funding, reporting pathways, and how complaints reach DPPC, and the commissioner said the agency uses both mandated reporting and proactive outreach to identify and respond to abuse.

Transcript Highlights:

• review that we<00:19:04.679><c> have.
• </c> for SHPD's review. for SHPD's review. Okay.<00:28:06.880><c> All</c><00:28:06.920><c> right.
• That we already have mandatory review times in chapter 60.
• mandatory review times in chapter 60. 60. 60.
• </c> Committee the opportunity to review it. Committee the opportunity to review it.

Bills: SB2069 , SB2177 , SB2342 , SB2060 , SB2544 , SB3011 , SB2061 , SB2552

Committee: House Housing

Summary: The House Housing Committee opened its Friday morning hearing by noting potentially catastrophic flooding on the island and acknowledging that some members were absent helping their communities, so quorum for voting was uncertain. The committee then heard testimony on several housing-related measures, with most bills drawing support from housing agencies and community organizations and little or no opposition in the room. On SB 2069 SD2, SB 2177 SD2, and SB 2342 SD2, witnesses largely supported the measures. HHFDC supported SB 2069 and SB 2177, and HPHA supported SB 2342. For SB 2342, HHFDC raised concerns that the bill would alter the Qualified Allocation Plan outside the normal open, public process required by federal law and could exclude stakeholders; Kathy Charities echoed those concerns and also objected to changing point allocations in ways that could raise rents and weaken long-term affordability. Members questioned HHFDC about how the QAP is normally updated, the meaning of the point system, and whether a legislative working group could mandate changes; HHFDC said recommendations would still need public hearing and board approval. The committee also heard SB 2060 SD2, which would create a mixed-income subaccount in the rental housing revolving fund. HHFDC said the subaccount would likely use tier-two funds, estimated at about $100 million total, to support mixed-income projects above 60% AMI, citing Front Street Apartments as a possible example. Members asked about project selection and funding needs. On SB 2544 SD2, OHA opposed the bill’s Chapter 6E-related exemptions and mandatory review timelines, arguing that burial review protections should not be weakened and that the SPEED Task Force process was a better venue for streamlining. The sponsor later clarified that the bill was not meant to eliminate the 60-day review process but to make the deadline clearer. For SB 3011 SD1, which concerns public housing and pet ownership, HPHA and several humane organizations supported the measure, saying it would help low-income residents and seniors keep pets and benefit from animal companionship. HPHA explained its existing pet policy, including deposits, monthly fees, and restrictions, and said the requested funding would support ADA-accessible pet areas and related administration. Finally, on SB 2061 SD2, HCDA supported the bill while OHA opposed it unless protections for Hawaiian Crown and Government lands were strengthened. Committee members questioned the project’s 60/40 split between income-restricted and market-rate units, the 10-year owner-occupancy restriction, and the procurement exemption; the sponsor said the exemption was tied to a real estate transaction and that the project would still use 103D-like solicitation procedures. No votes were taken during the hearing, and several items were left for later action because quorum was uncertain.

Transcript Highlights:

• It says state review process and regulations.
• How long do we give DOT to review our work?
• DOT controlled theirs for when they're reviewing our work.
• Now let's talk about the state review processes.
• WSDOT review of local projects.

Committee: Joint Joint Transportation Committee

Summary: The meeting began with introductions from members of the Joint Transportation Committee and a presentation from the Association of Washington Cities and the public works directors of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and West Richland. The cities described the Quad Cities region as one of the fastest-growing in the state and outlined shared transportation priorities that align with the committee’s focus on safety, multimodal access, climate resilience, and economic development. They emphasized Vision Zero efforts, complete streets, ADA accessibility, regional trail and bike/pedestrian planning, and coordinated long-range transportation and land-use planning to manage growth. The city officials also discussed major funding and delivery challenges, including rising construction costs, project phasing, pavement preservation, right-of-way acquisition, and delays caused by state and federal permitting and review processes. They highlighted regional cooperation through the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Good Roads, and local funding tools such as impact fees, transportation benefit districts, REET, tax increment financing, and state and federal grants. Specific projects discussed included Richland’s SR 240/Aaron Drive complete streets project and downtown connectivity work, Kennewick’s Columbia Center Boulevard improvements and rail study, Pasco’s Court/Road 68, Sylvester Street corridor, I-182 bridge/interchange work, and a new north-south bridge study, and West Richland’s SR 224 Red Mountain corridor project, which officials said was awarded under budget and is scheduled to begin construction. Committee members asked questions about sidewalk connections to schools, state-agency right-of-way timelines, apprenticeship utilization, contractor selection, and whether complete streets requirements add burdens to pavement preservation projects. The city officials said new development is generally meeting sidewalk standards, but older infill areas remain a gap; that state right-of-way transactions can take much longer than expected; that apprenticeship requirements are common but harder for smaller contractors and local labor markets; and that low-bid contracting leaves little room to screen for performance history. They also said complete streets requirements are usually manageable on major projects but can be difficult to absorb in smaller preservation work. The committee then shifted to a JTC-funded study on transit-oriented development, presented by Urban Institute researcher Yona Freemark. The study examined TOD conditions in 33 cities in Snohomish, King, Pierce, Clark, and Spokane counties near rail and bus rapid transit stations. Freemark said Washington’s housing affordability crisis is severe, especially near transit, and found that high-cost cities have seen more development near stations but also signs of gentrification and loss of affordable housing, while lower-cost cities have had less development and worsening affordability relative to income. He identified barriers including high debt costs, land costs, infrastructure costs, zoning and parking rules, and limited subsidies for affordable housing. He recommended more neighborhood infrastructure funding near stations, stronger affordable housing investment, and better use of public land, noting that HB 1491 and related legislation are already changing some local requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• The team will then begin reviewing all the potential corrections in the county.
• The team will then begin reviewing all the potential corrections in the county.
• Then we will review all the corrections, then we will review all the public comments we've got.
• Then we will review all the corrections, then we will review all the public comments we've got.
• Then we will review all the corrections, then we will review all the public comments we've got.

Committee: House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• :26.720><c> MPCA</c> After the permit is administratively complete, the MPCA starts its technical review
• During that review, we often require additional information from the applicant.
• times as it take can take up to review times as it take can take up to six<00:08:07.759><c> times</c
• a feed lot permit application for a feed lot subject to environmental review under the chapter, and
• under the chapter environmental review under the chapter and<00:26:56.799><c> that</c><00:26:56.960>

Committee: Senate Environment, Climate, and Legacy

Transcript Highlights:

• They're subject to internal review, the governor's review, and ultimately review by other commissioners
• It has come to light during these reviews, known as an en banc review, It has come to light during these
• reviews, known as an en banc review, that there is a need to provide additional discretion in order
• Additionally, changing the substantive standard of the review. On when the review was requested.
• We will review the amendments and will likely still be opposed, but we will review and consider.

Committee: Senate Public Safety

Summary: The committee met without a quorum and operated as a subcommittee while hearing several bills, with members repeatedly noting that votes would be taken later once a quorum was established. Early in the meeting, the committee heard SB 1446 on parole en banc review and SB 1278 on elderly parole eligibility for certain sex offenses. SB 1446’s author said the bill would give commissioners more discretion in en banc review, make votes public, and allow referral for sexually violent predator evaluation in certain cases; supporters included the California District Attorneys Association, while opponents from Uncommon Law, the Ella Baker Center, and public defender groups argued it would add confusion, create constitutional and litigation concerns, and duplicate existing safeguards. SB 1278 would exclude certain rape, child sexual abuse, and habitual/serial sex offense convictions from elderly parole eligibility; district attorneys and police chiefs supported it as a victim-safety measure, while civil rights and defense organizations opposed it as unnecessary, costly, and inconsistent with evidence on aging and recidivism. Both bills were discussed but not voted on due to the lack of quorum. The committee then heard SB 1354, which would bar out-of-state military or law enforcement personnel from entering California to perform such functions without the Governor’s permission. The author and supporters framed it as protecting state sovereignty and limiting unauthorized armed incursions; the committee accepted an amendment removing a criminal penalty and leaving enforcement to the Attorney General. No opposition testimony was offered, and members expressed support, but no vote was taken because quorum was still lacking. The committee also heard SB 926, a bill to fund implementation of Proposition 36. Supporters, including sheriffs, district attorneys, probation officials, and the League of California Cities, said local agencies need funding for treatment, supervision, and administration; opponents argued the proposal was fiscally reckless, lacked accountability, and overemphasized incarceration. Amendments removed a specific appropriation and shifted funding decisions to the budget process, but the bill was also held pending quorum. Later, the committee heard SB 874, which would require background checks for unlicensed providers of Medi-Cal behavioral health treatment services, create a stakeholder workgroup, and direct DHCS to issue guidance and report on program integrity. Support came from local health plans and behavior analysis providers, who said the bill would improve safety and consistency; there was no opposition testimony. The committee then heard SB 1210, which would extend CalGang oversight and due process protections to local gang databases as well as shared ones. Supporters described privacy abuses, racial disparities, and personal harm from inaccurate gang labels; law enforcement opposition argued the bill would impose CalGang standards on informal investigative files and would significantly change the gang definition. The author said the bill closes a loophole and preserves prior reforms, but no vote was taken. The committee also began hearing SB 1019 on creating a California Cargo Thief Task Force, with strong support from BNSF, trucking, shipping, port, and supply-chain representatives who described organized, multi-jurisdictional cargo theft and rail sabotage; no opposition was heard, and members indicated support, but action was deferred pending quorum. The meeting then moved to SB 1217 on a non-consensual intimate image clearinghouse, with the chair and author describing privacy-related amendments and the bill’s focus on helping survivors remove exploitative images; the transcript cuts off as that presentation began.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:11:17.279><c> the</c> The hands of the people who review the contract and ultimately review the
• So contracts reviewed without objection?
• review.
• </c> reviewed without objection? So move. reviewed without objection? So move.
• So, services contract review committee.

Summary: The Government Contract Committee met with a quorum, observed a moment of silence for Representative McCool after the death of his sister, and approved the April 14 minutes. The committee then reviewed a large agenda of contracts and amendments, beginning with a deferred Office of the Controller procurement involving broker services. Members questioned why a contract that had previously been handled for about $300,000 annually was now priced at about $1 million, and why the procurement was limited to one year. Office of the Controller staff said the prior vendor had held the work for more than 20 years, the work had previously been treated as not practical to bid, and the new RFP was intended to increase competition. They said the technical evaluation was scored before cost was considered, that past performance was not scored because it was seen as unreliable, and that AON received the highest technical score despite not being the lowest bidder. After discussion, the committee voted to take no action and let the contract proceed to the Finance Cabinet, with members noting continuing concerns about the pricing and process. The committee next considered a DCBS memorandum of agreement amendment for language services. DCBS representatives said the additional funding did not come from a new cut elsewhere, but from reduced spending on interpreter services because commonly used forms had been translated into other languages, freeing up funds for the contract. The committee approved the item unanimously. The final major item discussed was an initial contract for the Board of Hairdressers and Cosmetologists for legal services. Board staff said the board had been without a permanent general counsel since March 2024 and had relied on special and conflict counsel because of unusually heavy litigation, including 11 active cases, plus broader disciplinary and licensing changes tied to recent legislation and an oversight report. They said the contract was a not-to-exceed amount funded entirely by agency fees and that the board was currently running a surplus. Senator Thomas urged support, citing prior legislation and oversight findings about problems at the board and saying the contract was needed to help the board address ongoing litigation and corrective work. The committee approved the contract and then approved the remaining agenda items without objection, sending them forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• What is that right review?
• as well as financial review.
• We do review that.
• services, and that's a policy review.
• But then if two or three months later the sample is pulled and that case is reviewed, they're reviewing

Committee: Senate Health & Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> up to 10 units is exempt from the review up to 10 units is exempt from the review process.<00:23
• I would suggest that if it takes review.
• ,</c> what we look at or to change the review, what we look at or to change the review, the<00:31:27.840
• </c><00:42:00.400><c> condominium</c> attorney general to review condominium attorney general to review
• </c><01:20:16.239><c> them</c> and the parillegals that review them and the parillegals that review them

Committee: Senate Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and when I reviewed the testimony, I didn't see any statistical evidence that it, you know, where
• &gt;&gt; Um, &gt;&gt; Um, and<00:03:16.080><c> when</c><00:03:16.319><c> I</c><00:03:16.560><c> reviewed
• </c><00:03:16.959><c> the</c><00:03:17.200><c> testimony,</c><00:03:18.400><c> I</c> and when I reviewed
• the testimony, I and when I reviewed the testimony, I didn't<00:03:19.040><c> see</c><00:03:19.360><
• Ballard and asked him to just re-review the effectiveness of this, and what he wrote back was: I reviewed

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• The requirements are consistently reviewed, not only when access reaches a breaking point.
• pressures, operational limits, and accreditation requirements converge, without a systematic rate review
• that when policies reshape service delivery and quality expectations, reimbursement is regularly reviewed
• quality by ensuring that when new clinical administrative requirements are implemented, the rate review
• and H. 4353 ensure that as Massachusetts continues to strengthen quality and oversight, the rate review

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Health Care Financing

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing on several health care bills focused primarily on autism services and kidney disease coverage. Committee chairs John Lawn and Cindy Friedman opened by outlining hearing procedures, testimony rules, and filing deadlines, and noted the hearing would be recorded and written testimony accepted. They said the day’s topics included affordability and access to behavioral health services, provider reimbursement, Medicare coverage for vulnerable populations, and MassHealth eligibility asset exemptions. A major portion of the hearing concerned House Bill 4623, which would add board-certified assistant behavior analysts (BCABAs) as a recognized mid-level supervisory role in the MassHealth reimbursement framework to help address long wait lists for autism spectrum disorder services. Representative Lisa Field, actuaries, clinicians, and autism service providers testified that the current two-tier model limits workforce capacity, contributes to long delays, and leaves families waiting months for care. Supporters said the bill could expand access, improve retention, and potentially reduce MassHealth costs, while also helping providers meet growing demand and new administrative requirements. The committee also heard testimony on House Bill 4425 and Senate Bill 2737, which would allow Massachusetts residents under 65 with end-stage renal disease to purchase Medigap coverage. Legislators, dialysis advocates, and patients described high out-of-pocket costs under Medicare, barriers to kidney transplant eligibility without secondary insurance, and the financial strain on patients and families. Testifiers said the change would affect about 846 residents, could modestly increase premiums, and might reduce Medicaid spending by preventing asset spend-downs. Senator Gomez and others spoke from personal experience with dialysis and transplant care. Finally, the committee heard testimony on House Bill 4353 and Senate Bill 2587, which would require regular data-driven review of MassHealth ABA reimbursement rates. Providers and association representatives argued that reimbursement has not kept pace with inflation, workforce shortages, accreditation costs, and new 2026 MassHealth policy requirements, and said the bills would improve transparency and ensure rates reflect the true cost of care. No votes were taken; the hearing concluded with the chairs thanking participants, inviting additional written testimony, and adjourning the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• hearing, in their sunset review report, and the committee's sunset review background paper.
• SB 1368 addresses the issues discussed during the board sunset review hearing in their sunset review
• SB 1368 addresses the issues discussed during the board sunset review hearing in their sunset review
• Addresses the issues discussed during the board sunset review hearing in their sunset review report and
• the committee's sunset review background paper.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development heard several sunset and policy bills affecting state boards and professional practice. SB 1302 would extend the Board of Registered Nursing for four years and make operational changes such as streamlining renewals, updating simulation and school-approval standards, and allowing certain out-of-state nurse practitioner experience to count toward California recognition; nursing groups supported it, while the California Medical Association raised a concern about the out-of-state NP provision. SB 1303 would extend the Board of Naturopathic Medicine to 2031 and add a fictitious name permit program, term staggering, and other technical changes; it drew support from the board and naturopathic doctors, but the California Naturopathic Association opposed it unless amended to clarify the board’s jurisdiction. SB 1304 would extend the Respiratory Care Board to 2031 and revise respiratory care rules, including LVN practice in certain settings; it was supported by some providers and respiratory therapists, but hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and other groups opposed it unless amended to allow LVNs to perform basic respiratory tasks in more health care settings. SB 1363 would extend the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology and update apprenticeship, licensure, and tribal exemption provisions, and SB 1368 would extend the speech-language pathology, audiology, and hearing aid dispensers board while adding a retired license category and continuing-education oversight changes; both were supported and had no opposition. All of these bills were voted out of committee, generally on a 10-0 basis after the committee later established quorum and took recorded votes. The committee also heard SB 865, which would create a California Music Festival Preservation Grant Program within the Office of Small Business Advocate to support large independent multi-day music festivals. The author and supporters argued that festivals like Aftershock and GoldenSky generate substantial tourism, hotel nights, jobs, and tax revenue, and that state support would help keep events in California rather than other states. Opposition focused on the use of public funds during a deficit year and questioned whether profitable festivals should receive a grant subsidy. The bill passed on a 9-1 vote, with Senator Choi opposed. Members also heard SB 1297, which would create regional wildfire public-private partnerships and a financing structure using local commitments, a revolving fund, and state-backed revenue bonds coordinated with iBank to fund wildfire mitigation projects. Supporters said the bill would help address the state’s large wildfire mitigation funding gap by leveraging public and private capital for home hardening, vegetation management, and other prevention work; questions centered on where bond repayment funds would come from, and the author said the bill was still a work in progress and not intended to cost the state. The bill passed unanimously. Finally, SB 993, presented on behalf of Senator Ochoa-Bogue, would restore privacy protections for mental health professionals in correctional and state hospital settings by limiting routine disclosure of identifying information while preserving a complaint process; testimony described safety concerns and staffing impacts, and the bill passed unanimously.

Transcript Highlights:

• It requires a reduction in permit fees attributable to plans review or building inspectors.
• Going over to line 241 to 273 as it pertains to local governments and the administrative review.
• This bill punishes careful review. All the conservation language in this bill is bull as well.
• To that point, the required 60-day review and 30-day response is unreasonably short.
• by local planning boards, or any public hearings, and there's no review or approval by the Board of

Committee: Senate Community Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Through an administrative review, which is submitted to TCOLE; or 2.
• Unfortunately, SB14 would effectively dismantle the Community Police Review Commission.
• So it's a very close group that's looking at that review. Fast forward.
• Could review these documents in a public integrity investigation.
• Some cities have city review commissions for complaints against police.

Bills: SB7 , SB14 , SB 7 , SB 14

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• And we did actually do the review of the report from February.
• in compliance with that review following the first scheduled meeting.
• For this report, ALA randomly selected six districts for review.
• For this report, ALA randomly selected six districts for review.
• Finding number two, a review of credit card disbursements totaling $43,294 Finding number two, a review

Committee: All LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING-COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES

Summary: The committee approved the February 12 minutes and then received updates on delinquent municipal water and sewer reports, noting substantial progress in bringing cities back into compliance. Several items were deferred at the request of local officials, including Fargo’s municipal accounting code report, Jericho’s misuse of street funds matter, Biggers, Holly Grove, Gilmore, and several private water and sewer reports lacking proper responses. The committee also filed a number of reports with no questions or with resolved findings. A lengthy portion of the meeting focused on repeat audit findings and management responses. The City of Strong’s mayor described corrective steps on undeposited funds, improper use of solid waste funds, unsupported spending, IRS payroll tax issues, accounting controls, restricted fund transfers, and budget overruns; the committee commended the city’s efforts and filed the report. Calhoun County’s report, involving improper county spending for an appreciation banquet and altered receipts in the collector’s office, was also filed after discussion about educating local officials on constitutional spending limits. Other reports filed included Salem, Briarcliffe, Compton Water Association, and Montgomery County Regional Public Water Authority, while several private water reports were deferred or referred to prosecutors and the Attorney General. The committee reviewed a major regional solid waste management districts report, with significant findings for Pulaski County and Faulkner County involving unapproved payroll items, missing documentation, vehicle and cell phone use, lack of competitive bids, and weak internal controls; Benton County had fewer issues, and several districts had no findings. On motion, the Pulaski County report was deferred so district representatives could answer questions. The committee also heard from Nevada County, where unauthorized withdrawals and interlocal landfill agreement problems were discussed; the county judge said the issues were being corrected, and the report was filed. Later, the committee heard from the City of Grubbs about long-standing IRS debt and from Cross County Rural Water System about overdue audit posting and water quality problems; both witnesses described corrective efforts and ongoing funding or infrastructure projects, and the committee filed the reports after extensive discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• And they've also moved to a third-party review process as well to ensure...
• And they've also moved to a third-party review process as well to ensure...
• They both reviewed it. It was redundant. They both signed off on it.
• I mean, those large projects require fire protection review, utilities, and a number of review projects
• You know, having a clear-cut process of review by an independent body, I'm all for.

Committee: House Government Efficiency

Transcript Highlights:

• First up, we have the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee.
• Today we will present to you the 2025 tax preference performance reviews.
• First, the legislature requires a recurring review.
• Next is a review of a property tax exemption.
• Three, is there data that informs the review?

Committee: House Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Pesticide regulation is different than consumer products because they undergo a pre-market review to
• EPA, is that the immunotoxicity reviews are waived at the U.S.
• California, and then the Department of Pesticide Regulation reviews it.
• We also have concerns around the review.
• review component of that: it is true there was an improvement, but it was extremely minimal.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality