Transcript Highlights:

• When there are finite election funds to go around, it makes sense to allocate our polling places in a
• When there are finite election funds to go around, it makes sense to allocate our polling places in a
• It would help with the allocation of polling locations.
• So this better allocates the polls. That's why I was talking about the allocation.
• Can they pay with campaign funds?

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 3709, which would change the partial manual audit process so early voting could be audited by voting location rather than by randomly selected precincts. The author and several supporters said the current precinct-based process is antiquated, labor-intensive, and especially difficult in countywide voting systems and large counties. Opponents and some neutral witnesses raised concerns about whether the change would still allow an apples-to-apples audit against official precinct results, whether random selection procedures should be more clearly defined, and how ballot secrecy and mail ballots would be handled. The Secretary of State’s office said counties already use random selection methods and that the bill would largely standardize early voting audits with election-day procedures, while also noting ballot privacy issues can arise in public records requests. After testimony, the bill was left pending. The committee then took up House Bill 766, as substituted, which would require precinct chair applicants to provide an email address, phone number, or both, while making that contact information confidential. Supporters said the change would help parties and local officials contact applicants more efficiently. Opponents argued it could expose personal contact information to public records requests and harassment, and some suggested the information should instead be handled through party rules. The bill was left pending after the committee substitute was withdrawn. House Bill 3775 followed and would set clearer timelines for when early voting ballot boards may begin opening carrier envelopes, with different start times based on county size. Supporters said the bill would address counties opening ballots too early and improve ballot security, while opponents warned it could delay defect notices and cure opportunities for mail voters and create problems in large counties that process high volumes of ballots. Testimony also focused on whether the bill referred to carrier envelopes or secrecy envelopes and on how counties like Harris County currently image and secure ballot materials. The bill was left pending. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 4275, which would require countywide polling systems to have polling places in each election precinct, intended to address uneven distribution of polling locations across county commissioner precincts. Supporters said the bill would make polling place distribution fairer and more consistent, especially in Harris County, while opponents said it would undermine countywide voting, increase costs, require more equipment and staff, and reduce local flexibility. Several witnesses also raised concerns about ballot secrecy and the practical burden on large and rural counties. The bill remained under discussion as testimony continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• What are your plans for the funding?
• Both trust funds are allocated within the investigative service budget entity.
• Fund carries a zero cash balance.
• in federal... ...funding.
• This request is also for authority, fully for federal funds, and is allocated once again to the Miami

Summary: The Legislative Budget Commission met to consider 21 budget amendments, beginning with the Department of Education’s request for $14.751 million in federal grant authority for the Preschool Development Grant. Members asked whether any funds would support VPK or provider payments; the department said the money is for birth-to-kindergarten early learning work, including IT modernization, workforce credentialing, training, and streamlining director certification. The amendment was adopted without objection. The commission then approved amendments for the Department of Veterans Affairs to shift $2.2 million within its trust fund to cover higher nursing home occupancy and reduce staffing agency use, and for the Department of Health to realign about $9.1 million for disability determinations amid a backlog of roughly 140,000 cases. The Agency for Health Care Administration presented multiple Medicaid-related amendments, including $766 million for indirect medical education, $1.9 million for managed care network adequacy audits, $209 million for the Rural Health Transformation Program, and several large supplemental payment programs for KidCare, hospitals, physicians, cancer hospitals, nursing IME, and public hospital payments. Members questioned network adequacy, rural access, and the KidCare surplus and expansion; the KidCare realignment drew debate, with some members objecting because the 2023 eligibility expansion has not been implemented, but the amendment passed on a roll call vote. Other amendments adopted included FDLE’s $16.3 million for counter-UAS detection and mitigation equipment, DJJ’s $1.6 million for Florida Scholars Academy and a Social Services Block Grant realignment, and emergency management pass-throughs for FIFA World Cup security and counter-drone funding to the Miami host committee. The Department of Commerce received $148.4 million for disaster recovery under the CDBG-DR program, with questions about the split between housing, infrastructure, and administrative costs. The Department of State also received $408,377 for arts and culture grant authority. Most amendments were adopted without objection, and the commission adjourned after completing the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is supported by the Facilities Partnership Fund, which is fund balances, set-aside funds, and transfers
• from the Public School Fund.
• It's supported by the State Central Services Fund.
• I believe this is the $2 million that was a special fund. It was allocated in FY26 and FY27...
• by the state central services fund at 2%.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we ended up, for 2025–27, general funds at $1.2 billion and total funds at $1.7 billion.
• Funding for compensation at Western comes from two sources, either state funds or local funds, which
• The fund split is a mechanism which splits the cost of compensation increases between state funds and
• The fund split is a mechanism. on the university is the fund split.
• ASEs include teaching assistants who are funded by our core funds and research assistants, largely funded

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Employment Relations met on May 8, 2026, to receive updates on upcoming collective bargaining for the 2027–29 biennium. OFM’s Jenny Sheehan reviewed the state workforce, noting that most employees are represented, the workforce remains constrained by hiring limits and civil service rules, and bargaining goals include financially feasible agreements, maintaining labor relations, supporting an inclusive workplace, and addressing issues such as AI use, leave, and immigration-related workplace protections. She also outlined the bargaining calendar, the role of the June revenue forecast in determining what compensation proposals can be funded, and the need to reach tentative agreements by September 2026 for October 1 submission and legislative consideration. She described recent bargaining themes from unions, including limits on AI, expanded leave, access to union members in hybrid workplaces, and classification changes, and she summarized prior-cycle costs, including about $1.2 billion in general funds and $1.7 billion in total funds for 2025–27 awards, excluding the delayed WPEA agreements that were later funded after a return to bargaining. The committee then heard from Western Washington University and the University of Washington on higher education bargaining. Western described its locally bargained contracts, the importance of re-opener clauses tied to state budget decisions, and concerns about the instability of the state “fund split,” which shifts compensation costs between state funds and tuition revenue. Western also emphasized that student employees are increasingly central to retention and urged inclusion of student compensation in the wage base. UW similarly described its large and diverse workforce, the split between RCW 41.56 and 41.80 bargaining frameworks, and the reliance on state funding, tuition, and other revenue sources to cover compensation increases. UW highlighted the financial strain of the fund split, the lack of state funding for academic student employee compensation, and the impact of rising ASE costs on class sizes and the university’s teaching and research missions. OFM also presented on Washington Management Service bargaining, explaining that only certain WMS employees are covered, that bargaining began in 2024, and that current agreements include addenda for WMS-specific provisions. The presentation noted that WMS bargaining is still limited in scope, with only a few represented units, and that compensation bargaining generally covers band minimums and maximums rather than all salary levels. Finally, OFM reviewed interest arbitration rules for certain state employee groups, explaining that arbitration is available for some essential-service and statutorily covered employees, that arbitrators decide disputed contract language based on statutory criteria, and that awards still must be found financially feasible by OFM. Committee members asked about PFML treatment, the timing of arbitration, and the budget pressures facing bargaining, and the meeting adjourned without any votes or formal actions.

Transcript Highlights:

• How are you going to choose how to allocate the funding and to what locations? Questions.
• Are you going to choose how to allocate the funding into what locations?
• The funding will be allocated depending on maybe the area and the population of the area.
• So how are we going to be able to allocate the funds for this bill? You're recognized.
• So how are we going to be able to allocate the funds for this bill? This bill will be state-funded.

Summary: The Arkansas Boys State House convened with a quorum, heard opening remarks from legislative leaders and guests, and then considered a series of bills focused on rural services, education, taxes, and zoning. House Bill 1001 would have increased rural health care funding through a 10% tax on individuals earning at least $300,000; supporters argued it would improve access and quality in rural areas, while opponents raised concerns about fairness, long-term funding, and whether it would drive away doctors and taxpayers. The bill failed by a vote of 24 yeas, 51 nays, and 1 present. House Bill 1002 would have limited the number of subjects rural teachers could be assigned and offered sign-on bonuses to recruit more teachers; supporters said it would reduce burnout and improve specialization, while opponents questioned funding and whether it would worsen inequities. After immediate consideration, it passed narrowly, 38 yeas, 36 nays, and 2 present. The House then debated House Bill 1003, which would regulate AI data centers through county zoning authority and a 10% tax on corporations to fund conservation efforts. Supporters said counties should be able to decide whether data centers fit local needs, while opponents warned about lost jobs, higher costs, and federal-state jurisdiction issues. The bill passed 62 yeas, 7 nays, and 3 present. House Bill 1004 would have reduced motor vehicle registration fees to offset high fuel costs, but critics argued it would reduce highway and road funding and strain the state budget; it failed 20 yeas, 46 nays, and 4 present. The chamber then took up Senate bills. Senate Bill 1 proposed incentives tied to SNAP benefits to encourage healthier food purchases and address food insecurity and obesity; supporters framed it as a way to improve access to healthy food, while opponents objected to taxing junk food and burdening SNAP users. It passed 43 yeas and 27 nays. Senate Bill 2 would require reading tests in middle school and state tutoring for students who fail; supporters said it would address literacy problems early, while opponents wanted clearer provisions for older students and implementation. It passed 67 yeas, 6 nays, and 1 present. Senate Bill 3 would cut individual and corporate income taxes to promote economic growth and ease cost-of-living pressures; supporters cited prior tax cuts and business attraction, while opponents said the benefits would mostly go to wealthy corporations and CEOs. It passed 53 yeas, 15 nays, and 16 present. Senate Bill 4 created a mixed-use zoning grant program funded by a 1% hotel tourism tax to encourage affordable housing and downtown redevelopment; it passed 51 yeas, 7 nays, and 13 present. The session ended with a motion to adjourn, which carried.

Transcript Highlights:

• and fire uh area we were with the funds and fire uh area we were with the funds we<00:04:04.080>
• > some we were able to allocate some we were able to allocate some investments<00:04:06.640>
• allocation and adjustments.
• of living allocation and adjustments. of living allocation and adjustments.
• that we gave last biennium was one-time funding, and we are already a third through that funding.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Allocating our state dollars in this way allows us to fully harness all of the federal funding available
• We've got the Complete Streets Funding Program, which is not included in this bill today, but does fund
• So again, the funding is so important.
• Local officials are grateful for this funding, and at the same time, to make sure that this funding is
• Local officials are grateful for this funding, and at the same time, to make sure that this funding is

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets held a public hearing on H. 5279, a bill financing long-term improvements to municipal roads and bridges. MassDOT and A&F testified in support, describing the bill as a more than $5 billion transportation bond package centered on a four-year, $1.2 billion Chapter 90 authorization, plus funding for MBTA rail reliability and modernization, housing-related transportation improvements, a new DCR/MassDOT PRISM program for parkways and other DCR assets, and reauthorizations of the Municipal Pavement Program, Shared Streets and Spaces, and highway programs. They said the bill would support safety, resilience, housing production, and multimodal transportation, and noted that some bonds could be issued as special obligation bonds backed by the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues. Committee members asked about the size and structure of the authorizations, the federal match for highway projects, the source of MBTA vehicle procurement, bridge repair needs, and whether the housing-related funds could be used flexibly for items like sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stops, and other local transportation improvements. Administration witnesses said the bill is intended as a temporary refill of existing programs until a larger transportation bond bill is filed next session, that the federal-aid line includes the full spending authority while the state only borrows the 20% match, and that the housing-related program is deliberately broad and not limited to MBTA communities. They also said Chapter 90 includes a road-mile component that especially helps rural communities and that preservation and safety are built into the programs. The Massachusetts Municipal Association also testified in strong support, emphasizing that Chapter 90 is the most important tool municipalities have to maintain the roughly 30,000 miles of local roads and bridges they are responsible for. MMA urged timely passage before construction season and praised the continued $300 million Chapter 90 level, especially the $100 million road-mile distribution that helps communities with large road networks and smaller populations. No votes were taken on the bill, and the hearing concluded with adjournment after testimony ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• housing revolving fund.
• Requires HHFDC to appropriates funds.
• prohibits HHFDC from allocating prohibits HHFDC from allocating low-income<00:08:56.080> housing
• <00:11:35.920> loans in rental housing revolving fund loans in rental housing revolving fund
• the rental housing revolving fund. the rental housing revolving fund.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing heard and then took action on a series of housing-related bills concerning HHFDC, HPHA, inclusionary zoning, nonprofit housing trusts, housing project exemptions, the rental housing revolving fund, and a new for-sale housing program. Testimony was generally supportive from HHFDC and HPHA, with additional support from groups such as Hawaii YIMBY, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Hawaii Appleseed, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Holo Collaborative, the Kobayashi Group, and others. On SB 2424, the Kobayashi Group argued the bill would help open housing to a broader pool of local households, including buyers slightly above income limits who still cannot afford market-rate housing. On SB 2342, the chair asked HHFDC for final figures on rental housing revolving fund appropriations since 2016 and was told the amount was about $1.1 billion, including conveyance tax revenue. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage of SB 2189 with amendments, noting concerns about transparency and accountability in HHFDC’s loan-award process; SB 2190 with amendments; SB 2234 with amendments; SB 2177 with amendments; SB 2194 unamended; SB 2342 with amendments; SB 2060 with amendments; and SB 2070 with amendments. The committee deferred SB 2195 and SB 2196 after testimony comments, and deferred SB 2063 because the chair said SB 2060 would be used instead as the vehicle for mixed-income subaccount changes. SB 2424 was discussed in hearing but then deferred in decision-making pending legal advice on issues including owner-occupancy, county income restrictions, buyback rules, and county council approval. The committee also heard testimony on SB 2062 and its proposed SD1, but deferred that measure because the relevant changes had already been incorporated into SB 2060 SD1.

Transcript Highlights:

• AN ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES.
• THROUGH THE USE OF ADDITIONAL FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING AND LOCAL FUNDING THE DEPARTMENT ISSUED A TOTAL OF
• AS I SAID WE WERE ABLE TO FUND A 71 OF THOSE.
• IS IT A LACK OF FUNDING? ARE WE NOT ACCURATELY FUNDING IT?
• WE ARE LOOKING AT LOCAL FUNDING.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition to this economic benefit of providing funds for regional kitchens, the Land-Grant?
• In closing, I fully support SB 894 relating to education, as this bill will help allocate funds to expand
• In addition to this economic benefit of providing funds for regional kitchens, the Lands?
• In closing, I fully support SB 894 relating to education, as this bill will help allocate funds to expand
• In closing, I fully support SB 894 relating to education, as this bill will help allocate funds to expand

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thanks to funding from the desk.
• ,<01:21:49.520> they is after they steal the funds, they is after they steal the funds, they
• <03:47:04.080> where in an anti-trafficking fund where in an anti-trafficking fund where wherever
• way. um one just for resource allocation way. um one just for resource allocation and<03:49:19.680
• So funding for the first time in 2023.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the type of data that we look at when we're allocating funds to campuses.
• It's also very consistent with how the Legislature in the past has allocated funds, regardless of what
• the ...with how the Legislature in the past has allocated funds, regardless of whether you're looking
• As currently written, the Act allocates 50% of capital funding to UMass, 25% to the state universities
• As currently written, the Act allocates 50% of capital funding to UMass, 25% to the state universities

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on the BRIGHT Act, a higher education capital bill that would use Fair Share surtax revenue to fund major repairs, modernization, and decarbonization projects across UMass, state universities, and community colleges. UMass leadership described a $4.8 billion deferred maintenance backlog, aging buildings, and the need to modernize facilities, improve accessibility, and reduce emissions. Administration officials said the bill would authorize $2.5 billion in capital funding, split roughly 50-50 between UMass and the rest of public higher education, plus additional targeted funding for housing planning, smaller modernization projects, campus master plans, and workforce skills grants. They emphasized that the financing structure is modeled on the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and would not raise student costs, while also supporting affordability through financial aid and free community college. Members raised questions about regional equity, the distribution of funds among the five UMass campuses and the 24 state university/community college campuses, project labor agreements, whether the bill would unlock private or federal matching funds, and how the system is preparing for AI and changing workforce needs. UMass officials said project selection is data-driven, based on deferred maintenance, safety, accessibility, sustainability, and programmatic needs, and that the flagship campus in Western Massachusetts would likely receive a large share because of its size and needs. They also said UMass Boston would receive its own share and would not be shortchanged by the Bayside project. On labor, they said PLAs are commonly used and they would follow existing board and building authority policies. On affordability, they said the university has shifted hundreds of millions into need-based aid and that the state’s recent support has helped keep tuition low for many students. DCAMM and higher education officials said the state’s public campuses account for a large share of state-owned building space and a disproportionate share of operational carbon emissions, making decarbonization a major driver of the bill. They said the legislation would allow larger, more comprehensive projects that can address deferred maintenance, energy efficiency, and program needs at the same time, while also making some projects shovel-ready through the Fair Share supplemental funding already appropriated. A later panel from the State Universities Council of Presidents argued the bill’s authorization is still too small to meet long-term needs and urged the committee to increase the bond cap and ensure a more equitable distribution among segments. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We recognize that we need to reassess cost allocation.
• I don't think the Texas Energy Fund or the...
• Nuclear Energy Fund or this legislation will do that as well.
• Allocate costs based on that.
• to make sure that those funds were being used appropriately.

Bills: SB 6, SB6, SB504, SB765, SB815, SB929

Keywords: hemp, consumable hemp, hemp-derived cannabinoids, CBD, cannabidiol, CBG, cannabigerol, delta-8, delta-9, intoxicating hemp, hemp gummies, hemp vape, edibles, cannabinoid regulation, hemp licensing, retailer registration, product registration, QR code labeling, child-resistant packaging, minor access

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund.
• Was this new fund?
• First, we'll give you a funding overview of how our funding works at PSFA.
• Moving on to the next slide, this is a high-level summary: the funds are allocated through a structured
• These funds will be sent directly to Indian Affairs for distribution, allocation, and reporting.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I don't remember how much we allocated, but I think it was about a million.
• So that funding has been appropriated and we have allocated that out to districts.
• And when we do service option one, which is the district stand up, there's an allocation of funding to
• I mean, we are fully allocated at this time for what we have.
• We are wanting to be good stewards of the funding of the program.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll hear about public education funding tax relief, pensions, and also infrastructure funding.
• Again, the next few items are are funding to support schools, not necessarily funding specific to TEA
• And then that is a funding source for state funds for other schools in the state.
• That was part of the state funding.
• was some funding per building.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• small commercial consumers will benefit from more accurate load growth forecasting and more equal allocation
• Scenario 4 is a little different in how T-cost is allocated. talking about were these lighter costs and
• But my larger point was just the concern about ensuring that cost allocation more carefully looked at
• So do you have a position on the energy fund, which is kind of meant to spur?
• There was a lot of applications for those funds, correct?

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have allocated fire funds up there for the fire that occurred east of the highway.
• We also have allocated fire funds up there for the fire that occurred east of the highway.
• We also have allocated fire funds up there for the fire that occurred east of the highway.
• We also have allocated fire funds up there for the fire that occurred east of the highway.
• > fire<00:09:38.080> funds<00:09:38.560> up we also have allocated fire funds up

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A lot of it is federally funded, and I could see, because of the federal funding, possibility of shortfalls
• and<00:21:28.200> I lot of it is federally funded and I lot of it is federally funded
• I mean, how can we trust that allocation?
• <00:43:24.000> to but we so you don't have a fund to but we so you don't have a fund to collect
• <00:48:00.599> adjustments 1153 HD1 relating to funding adjustments 1153 HD1 relating to funding

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 412 HD1, which would expand the definition of lobbying to include certain communications with high-level officials about procurement decisions and create presumptions regarding lobbying on behalf of private clients. The State Ethics Commission and State Procurement Office supported the measure, saying it would improve transparency and align Hawaii with other states, while the Hawaii Primary Care Association opposed it over concerns that employers and others could be swept in too broadly. No public testimony or questions led to any action on the bill during the hearing. The committee then took up House Bill 131, which would allow agencies to disclose government records to researchers for certain research purposes and clarify the Office of Information Practices’ rulemaking authority. OIP and the Public First Law Center supported the bill, arguing it would create uniform standards and that concerns could be handled through rules. The University of Hawaiʻi system, DBEDT, DHS, DLNR, and others raised concerns about the breadth of the terms “research” and “researcher,” privacy, confidential information, and possible misuse; Hawaiian Electric also warned about access to sensitive infrastructure information. Members questioned whether the bill was premature and whether definitions should be narrowed in statute, and OIP said it would consider working with agencies and the University on clearer definitions. House Bill 792 HD1, relating to the Office of the Legislative Analyst, drew no testimony beyond a late written support from the Hawaii Children’s Action Network, and the committee moved on without discussion. The committee then heard House Bill 1424, which would restrict transfers between appropriated funds for positions and operating expenses. Budget and Finance explained that current practice allows transfers from payroll to other current expenses when there are savings, but legislative appropriations for specific purposes must still be spent for that purpose. Several agencies expressed opposition or concerns, saying the bill could reduce flexibility, especially in response to federal funding changes or vacant positions, though members emphasized transparency and accountability. Budget and Finance suggested a reporting approach instead, and the committee discussed quarterly reporting as a possible alternative. Finally, the committee began House Bill 1153 HD1, which concerns funding adjustments for state programs and capital improvement projects and establishes a protocol fund. Budget and Finance, DAGS, and the State Procurement Office supported the measure, while the General Contractors Association and several construction-related groups opposed section two, arguing it would undo recent procurement protest-bond safeguards adopted in Act 162. The hearing then moved on toward House Bill 1297, but the transcript cuts off before that bill was fully discussed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Both grants are for water projects funded from the county allocation pool.
• All three grants are for water projects funded from the county allocation pool.
• in KPDI funds. in KPDI funds.
• local funds and federal funds. local funds and federal funds.
• those funds. those funds.

Keywords: The live stream ended prematurely due to a network issue. A full recording will be uploaded as soon as possible, 958, all

Summary: The committee first discussed and approved a new airport-related project involving two 60-by-80 corporate hangars. Members asked about how the project would generate revenue, and staff explained that hangar rent and fuel sales would help repay the costs, with more than half of the funding coming from the FAA. The project was approved by roll call vote. The committee then approved two large capital pool projects: a $1,715,120 roof replacement and skylight project for the Libraries and Archives building in Frankfort, and a $2,105,400 exterior renovation project for several state buildings, including Health and Family Services, the Kentucky History Center, and the State Office Building. After that, the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority presented one loan increase and five grant reallocations. The loan increase was for Springfield’s wastewater treatment plant project, rising by $262,300 to just over $2.88 million because bids came in higher than estimated. Members asked about the delay between approval and bidding, and staff explained the design, environmental review, and state approval process can take one to two years. The committee approved the six action items, and then received informational updates on additional water projects that required no action. The Cabinet for Economic Development next presented one forgivable loan and 11 KPDI/KPDI EDF grant projects. The loan was a $1 million forgivable loan for the Perry County Economic Development Board to acquire the Coalfields Industrial Building, with repayment forgivable if a project creates at least 75 jobs. The grant projects included site-readiness and industrial development work in Pendleton, Elizabethtown/Hardin, McCreary, Floyd, Marion, Fleming, Graves, Eddyville/Lyon, Caldwell, Mercer, and Johnson counties. Members asked how local match percentages are set and were told they are based on county population and updated every two years; staff also explained that beneficiaries usually provide the match and are reimbursed after submitting costs. The committee approved the action items. Finally, the Office of Financial Management presented two new debt issues and three SFCC debt issues. The new debt items were a Kentucky Housing Corporation bond authorization of up to $600 million for single-family mortgage revenue bonds, including a $100 million initial transaction, and a $5.5 million multifamily conduit bond for 98 apartments in Lexington. Informational items covered University of Kentucky refunding bonds and Turnpike Authority refunding bonds, both of which produced savings. The three SFCC debt issues for Campbell, Edmonson, and Perry counties were then approved by roll call vote. The meeting ended with brief discussion of the upcoming calendar and scheduling before adjournment.