Transcript Highlights:

• This just kind of gives you a visualization about where we're at, from internal work groups to eligibility

Keywords: Call to Order and Roll Call – 0:00:00 Workforce Pell Grant Update – 0:03:30 Extension Office Update – 0:33:25 Kentucky Academic Standards for Social Studies – 1:07:08 Early Literacy Outcomes – 1:32:20 Consideration of Referred Administrative Regulations – 1:58:30 Adjournment 2:13:13, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's the deal with visual inspection. So the other thing I want to bring up is preemption.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• multiple disabilities, and jumping down through speech and speech language and traumatic brain injury, visually

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met to review a large package of bills, with the first four—HB 717, 742, 773, and 603—focused on special education aid, formerly called catastrophic aid. Chair Ladin explained that the committee needed to move a special education bill forward by March 4 and was trying to determine which bill would serve as the vehicle. He described the current formula and the difficulty of estimating the fiscal impact of lowering the threshold from 3.5 times the statewide average cost per pupil to a lower level, noting that DOE did not have reliable data on how many students would fall into the lower-cost bands. The committee also noted that several other bills in the package addressed SWEP and adequacy issues, and that HB 510 dealt with due process rather than funding. Mark Mello of the Bureau of School Finance testified that the department only has reliable data for special education expenditures above $70,000 per student, since claims are submitted for reimbursement at that point. He said the bureau was trying to estimate how many students might fall between 2.5x and 3.5x or 3x and 3.5x the average cost, but that the basic answer was they did not know and that any estimate would be difficult. He explained that moving the threshold from 3.5x to 2.5x would create a minimum additional cost of about $13.6 million based on existing claims, not counting new students who would enter the range. Members discussed whether districts already had the underlying data, whether a survey should be required, and how districts know when to begin tracking costs for reimbursement. The committee also discussed proration and the state’s share of special education aid. Mello explained that the current 80% state share is modeled in the formula, but the actual payment has been prorated because appropriations have not matched the statutory liability; he said the state liability was about $50 million, while the budget had provided $34 million, resulting in a 68% payment rate. HB 742 was described as a bill that would eliminate proration by paying the liability directly from the education trust fund with an overflow mechanism. Members also discussed possible alternatives such as changing the state share, using a lower threshold in a transition period, or requiring districts to submit data. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided; the committee was still in discussion and considering which bills to advance.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, it's going to engage students auditorily, visually, kinesthetically, and tactilely.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But we got to just do what's like you say, on a playing field, visually.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And this will just be submitted for the record, but this is a very nice visual illustration of the changes

Keywords: Call to Order and Roll Call: 0:00:00 Approval of Minutes: 0:01:45 Federal Education Updates 0:02:12 Dual Credit Updates: 0:43:38 Kentucky State University's Doctoral Program Request: 01:27:08 Postsecondary Accreditation: 1:49:05 Consideration of Referred Administrative Regulations: 2:14:48 Adjournment 2:16:31, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the previous meeting minutes, and heard a presentation from Austin Reid of the National Conference of State Legislatures on education-related provisions in the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1). Reid said the law is projected to increase the federal deficit over 10 years, with major savings coming from Medicaid, student loan changes, and SNAP. He focused on how those changes could affect schools, including possible effects on free and reduced-price meal certification, state funding formulas that use SNAP as a proxy for low-income status, and Medicaid-funded school services for students with disabilities. Reid also outlined the new federal scholarship tax credit, which gives a dollar-for-dollar credit for donations to qualifying scholarship-granting organizations. He said families up to 300% of area median income may benefit, the program begins in 2027, and states must opt in and designate eligible organizations. He noted unresolved questions about whether states can add their own criteria and said Treasury regulations will be important. He also described the expansion of 529 plans to cover more K-12 and postsecondary expenses. On higher education, Reid explained a new workforce Pell grant option for short-term programs, with states and governors playing a role in determining eligible programs. He said the programs must meet placement, completion, and earnings measures and that implementation is expected to be tight before the July 1, 2026 effective date. He also reviewed student loan changes, including lower institutional loan limits, prorated borrowing for part-time enrollment, new caps on graduate and Parent PLUS loans, and a new earnings-based accountability standard that could make some programs ineligible for student loans if graduates earn too little. No votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think that you could visually compare that to the language that they have revenue, and I think a different

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 63, which concerns funding for the division of travel and tourism and its relationship to the meals-and-rooms tax calculation. Members asked for confirmation that the bill would not affect municipal distributions under RSA 78-A:26. Jennifer Ramsey of the Department of Revenue Administration explained that the amendment does not change meals-and-rooms distributions, but instead corrects the calculation for the travel and tourism appropriation by adding back the municipal fund transfer before applying the 3.15% floor. Chris Shay of the Office of the Attorney General agreed with that explanation. The committee also discussed the complexity of the meals-and-rooms statutes and the possibility of a future cleanup effort. The committee then voted 19-0 to recommend SB 63 ought to pass; it will not go on consent because it has a fiscal note. The committee next considered SB 60, relative to advanced deposit account wagering. Rep. Murphy moved ought to pass, explaining that the bill would regulate advanced deposit wagering on horse racing and impose a 1.25% revenue share on wagers from New Hampshire residents, generating roughly a quarter-million dollars in new lottery revenue in the first year. The motion passed 19-0, and the bill will not go on consent because of its fiscal note. The committee then voted 19-0 to recommend SB 147 ITL, with members noting that live racing facilities are in decline and the market is shrinking. SB 160, which updates raffle ticket pricing and prize limits for bingo-related gaming, also passed ought to pass 19-0 and will not go on consent. The committee then took up SB 73, which revises coverall bingo rules and increases prize limits. An amendment, 2025-1470H, was offered to raise the total prize amount to $5,000; members supported it as a reasonable compromise, and the amendment was adopted unanimously. The bill as amended then passed ought to pass 19-0, again with a fiscal note preventing consent placement. After those votes, the committee moved into a work session on SB 83, where members began discussing the bill’s video lottery terminal provisions, including the meaning of “maximum wager,” the absence of a cumulative betting cap, and concerns that the bill combines several distinct policy changes—tax treatment, VLT rules, renaming, and a self-exclusion database—into one measure. No vote was taken on SB 83 during the work session, and members indicated they would continue discussion later after reviewing side-by-side materials.

Transcript Highlights:

• that's used at the state level for every organization and then someone at the state level has visual

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Bills: SJR36, SB26, SJR3, SJR48, SJR50, SJR51, SCR15, SCR17, SB3, SB5, SB12, SB18, SB1001, SB1002, SB1003, SB1004, SB1005, SB1006, SB1007, SB1008, SB1009, SB1010, SB1011, SB1012, SB1013, SB1014, SB1015, SB1016, SB1017, SB1018, SB1019, SB1020, SB1021, SB1022, SB1023, SB1024, SB1025, SB1026, SB1027, SB1028, SB1029, SB1030, SB1031, SB1032, SB1033, SB1034, SB1035, SB1036, SB1037, SB1038, SB1039, SB1040, SB1041, SB1042, SB1043, SB1044, SB1045, SB1046, SB1049, SB1050, SB1051, SB1052, SB1053, SB1054, SB1055, SB1056, SB1057, SB1058, SB1059, SB1060, SB1061, SB1062, SB1063, SB1064, SB1065, SB1066, SB1067, SB1068, SB1069, SB1070, SB1071, SB1072, SB1073, SB1074, SB1075, SB1076, SB1077, SB1078, SB1079, SB1080, SB1081, SB1082, SB1083, SB1084, SB1085, SB1086, SB1087, SB1088, SB1089, SB1090, SB1091, SB1092, SB1093, SB1094, SB1095, SB1096, SB1097, SB1098, SB1099, SB1100, SB1101, SB1102, SB1103, SB1104, SB1105, SB1106, SB1107, SB1108, SB1109, SB1110, SB1111, SB1112, SB1113, SB1114, SB1115, SB1116, SB1117, SB1118, SB1119, SB1120, SB1121, SB1122, SB1123, SB1124, SB1125, SB1126, SB1127, SB1128, SB1129, SB1130, SB1131, SB1132, SB1133, SB1134, SB1135, SB1136, SB1137, SB1138, SB1139, SB1140, SB1141, SB1142, SB1143, SB1144, SB1145, SB1146, SB1147, SB1148, SB1149, SB1150, SB1565

Keywords: teacher compensation, education funding, public school educators, teacher retention, teacher designation, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, research funding, state budget, prevention, healthcare, medical research, Dementia Prevention and Research Institute, severance tax, oil and gas, Texas STRONG fund, economic stabilization, public health, property tax relief

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In my case, a company had come in and removed them before and did a visual inspection showing that there
• In my case, a company had come in and removed them before and did a visual inspection showing that there

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Environmental Policy Subcommittee took up HB 1621, which would require a baseline environmental impact study before development of certain manufacturing and storage facilities. Members said the concept had merit, but they could not resolve major drafting and implementation issues, including how to define covered facilities, what the study would require, and how enforcement would work at the municipal or county level. Several members expressed concern about unintended consequences and said the proposal was not ready; the subcommittee voted unanimously to recommend inexpedient to legislate (ITL), and the full committee later adopted that recommendation on a 16-0 roll call vote, placing the bill on consent. The committee then discussed HB 1053, involving electronically submitted pesticide use reports. Representative Comtois presented an amendment creating a department database and protecting confidential information, but said she still needed to check whether it was germane and to review administrative issues with the Department of Agriculture. After hearing from David Russo of the Division of Pesticide Control, the committee agreed to continue work on the amendment and took no action that day. The committee also reviewed HB 1186 on egg labeling and producer exemptions. Representative Comtois offered an amendment exempting small producers from most requirements except labeling, but Commissioner Sean Jasper asked for more time to review the impact and suggested the state might not need the existing egg law at all if federal USDA rules already cover the field. Members agreed to hold action until the following week. Finally, the committee began discussion of HB 1780 on penalties for violations involving seeds, plants, and nursery stock, focusing on labeling rules and germination-date requirements; testimony from industry and department representatives indicated they were working toward a compromise that would allow multiple relabelings, add production dates, and set a 36-month sale limit, but no final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also requires visual inspections twice a week, which is the current practice.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Front license plates are critical tools for quick visual identification of passing vehicles for confirming

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I guess the problem I have in visualizing this is that it’s really—I mean, there’s obviously Manchester

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee first dealt with a brew pub license bill and corrected some sponsor/subcommittee roster confusion before voting to pass it without discussion. The main item of debate was a bill allowing patrons to take purchased alcoholic beverages into restrooms. The bill sponsor argued the current ban is outdated, rarely enforced, and can leave patrons vulnerable if they set drinks down and leave them unattended; he said establishments could still post their own rules if they wished. Liquor enforcement officials said they were neutral overall, noting both the risk of drinks being left unattended and the practical concerns of underage drinking, over-service, and restroom monitoring. Testimony split between those who saw the law as a non-issue and those who viewed it as a safety measure. One member said he had never seen anyone take alcohol into a restroom and opposed changing the law, while others cited drink-spiking concerns and suggested alternatives such as safe zones behind bars, drink covers, and alert apps. Industry representatives said many operators would prefer to keep the law as-is because it helps with policing drinking in their establishments, though they acknowledged the motivation behind the bill. Several members also raised drafting concerns, saying the wording was confusing about whether the rule applied to patrons or establishments. The committee ultimately voted 5-2 to recommend the bill ought to pass. Afterward, members discussed amending the language to clarify that establishments could still prohibit the practice, but one member suggested a simpler fix would be to strike the word “restroom” from the prohibition entirely. The committee then unanimously voted to reconsider its action so the language could be revised later, and the amendment discussion was left for a future meeting.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So diving in a little bit deeper on those fishing and hunting license sales, this gives you a visual

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, while we focus on that as a visual, it is a sign that there are built-up nutrients and sediments

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This change is meant to address a problem of inconsistency in quality of audio-visual hearing transcripts

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> Oh, so that might help us all just visually, you know, picking up this conversation again.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so this slide’s trying to kind of visualize and show how the various financial mechanisms come

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee held an informational briefing on the Public Utilities Commission’s performance-based regulation (PBR) framework and the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ whistleblower complaint process. Chair Jared Kohole opened the meeting, noted it was informational only with no public testimony, and explained that members would hear presentations and then have an opportunity for questions. The committee heard first from Ulupono Initiative, which provided background on why utilities are regulated, how Hawaii’s cost-of-service model and rate cases work, and why PBR was adopted to shift utility incentives away from a capital-investment bias and toward performance, efficiency, cost control, and policy goals such as renewable energy and reliability. Ulupono described Hawaii’s PBR structure as a five-year multi-year rate plan with annual revenue adjustments, a customer dividend, a Z factor for extraordinary exogenous events, and an exceptional project recovery mechanism for large projects. It also outlined performance incentive mechanisms tied to renewable portfolio standard progress, interconnection speed, reliability, and shared savings. The presentation said the current docket is evaluating a possible hybrid approach that would combine forward-looking forecasting with historical results, and Ulupono advocated for stronger incentives, arguing the current rewards are too small relative to utility revenues and should be more meaningful to better align utility behavior with legislative intent. The PUC then presented its own overview, emphasizing that the PBR docket is open and active and that the briefing was limited to the record to avoid ex parte concerns. The commission described the development of PBR in Hawaii through multiple phases beginning in 2018: an initial collaborative phase to set goals, a formal contested-case phase that produced the initial framework, later phases adding scorecards, reported metrics, and additional performance incentive mechanisms, and subsequent refinements including sunset of some mechanisms and adjustments after the August 2023 Maui wildfires. The PUC said the framework is intended to be customer-centric, administratively efficient, and protective of utility financial integrity, and that current work includes evaluating how to balance forward-looking and historical test-year approaches within the rebasing process. No votes or formal actions were taken at the briefing.