Transcript Highlights:

• both your committee as well as House STE, which we're doing later this morning, um, to gather your feedback
• of what uh what you'd like to see or what concerns you have or uh items or just sort of general feedback
• setting of what you'd like to see or what concerns you have or uh items or just sort of general feedback
• Um, so what we're here to do today um is to take your feedback on what you'd like to see in the uh in
• You know, still getting state, excuse me, stakeholder feedback, um, and working through those.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Sometimes we get feedback. With that... You have the floor. Go right ahead. Good afternoon, Mr.
• So we've gotten some good feedback from residents that enjoy taking a bath.
• I just remember when you get done and you're not talking, please mute your mic for the feedback.
• You're asking a question to turn it off, we do give feedback. So you have the floor. Thank you.
• We're proud of the positive feedback we've received from the community.

Transcript Highlights:

• When we take the input and feedback from our community members, we can make sure we're addressing the
• engineering, public health, supply chain management, and environmental science, based directly on feedback
• That's a great question, and yes, we have a lot of input and feedback from the private industry obviously
• So I appreciate that specific feedback.
• And so we would like to see if there's anything that you would want to give us. feedback on that.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We've gotten feedback from districts.
• It's a bonus to this work, and I think from all the feedback. So I wanted to also bring up.
• The other piece that I would love feedback on, if anybody has it, is the first sentence in that amendment
• And that 'rolling basis' is language that I've gotten some feedback on that it might be a little bit
• However, looking back, I've reviewed this over the last 24 hours and tried to consider feedback that

Transcript Highlights:

• The new pieces will be providing some feedback.
• So we'll touch on that a little bit in the feedback as well. Little bit in the feedback as well.
• And then a little more feedback on Okay.
• And then a little more feedback on the federal meals programs.
• That was the feedback we're hearing from the field.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think the feedback that I've heard the most about is the changes to allowances for the electric
• So the staff proposal puts forward both a framework that we are soliciting feedback on.
• We look forward to additional feedback and engagement on that piece. All right. Thank you for that.
• Feedback that we've been getting on the utility allocation.
• This is a primary area of feedback that we've been hearing from stakeholders.

Summary: The committee heard an overview of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840 after last year’s reauthorization through 2045. CARB said the draft rule changes are intended to support affordability, market certainty, and the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets, while also addressing offsets, utility allowance transfers, leakage protections for industry, and post-2030 allowance budgets. Members emphasized the importance of completing the rulemaking on schedule this spring so the changes can take effect by September 1, 2026. A major focus was how allowances are allocated among electric utilities, natural gas utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. CARB explained that the proposal transfers natural gas utility allowances to electric utilities over time to support electrification and ratepayer protection, while maintaining free allowances for industry to reduce leakage risk and preserve in-state manufacturing and refining. Several members and panelists questioned whether the proposed utility changes could raise rates, whether the transition from gas to electric credits should happen faster, and whether the industrial allocation changes reduce climate credit and GGRF revenues more than necessary. CARB and panelists said they were open to additional data and comments, and noted that the proposal is still in public comment. The committee also discussed carbon capture, carbon removal, and refining. Members asked CARB to ensure that CCUS and CDR are clearly recognized as viable compliance pathways and to keep SB 905 rulemaking on track. On refining, members raised concerns about imported gasoline, leakage, and the need for better data on the carbon intensity of imported fuels; CARB said cap-and-invest applies to fuel suppliers at the rack, while life-cycle accounting issues are handled more through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and related modeling. CARB said it is continuing technical work on those data tools. In the second panel, the LAO, IEMAC, EDF, and SCAPA representatives generally agreed that the program faces real tradeoffs between affordability, ambition, and leakage protection. The LAO and IEMAC stressed that the Legislature should scrutinize how CARB divides the allowance “pie,” since more free allocations to utilities or industry mean less revenue for GGRF. EDF argued the program could be somewhat more ambitious in the near term without harming affordability, while SCAPA said the proposal would reduce allowances for publicly owned utilities and could undermine early decarbonization investments and ratepayer benefits. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the staff proposal puts forward both a framework that we are soliciting feedback on.
• We look forward to additional feedback and engagement on that piece. All right. Thank you for that.
• of... ...feedback that we've been getting on the utility allocation.
• This is a primary area of feedback that we've been hearing from stakeholders.
• SEAB is in the process of gathering feedback from members, but would like to highlight a few...

Summary: The Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policy heard an overview from CARB on proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, which was reauthorized through 2045 by AB 1207 and SB 840. CARB said the draft rules are intended to preserve affordability, market certainty, and progress toward the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets. The agency described the program’s main features, including the declining emissions cap, utility and industrial allowance allocations, offset changes, the allowance price containment reserve, and new reporting and oversight requirements. CARB also said the rulemaking is on a public comment timeline, with board consideration planned for late May and an effective date targeted for September 1, 2026. Committee members focused heavily on electricity affordability, the planned shift of free allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and whether the proposal would raise rates for investor-owned and publicly owned utilities. CARB said the proposal is meant to protect ratepayers from compliance costs and that the utility allocation is based on updated data showing utilities are greener than before, but members and utility representatives argued the transition should happen faster and that the current draft could reduce expected revenues and disrupt long-term planning. Members also pressed CARB on carbon capture and sequestration, asking that the regulations clearly recognize it as a compliance pathway, and on whether the SB 905 rulemaking for carbon capture should move forward on schedule. A second major topic was industrial allocations, especially for refiners and other sectors at risk of leakage. CARB said it is keeping all industries at high leakage risk through 2030, maintaining the current cap-adjustment approach, and leaving room for additional comments and data on whether refiners need more allowances to avoid economic leakage and preserve in-state refining. Members also questioned how imported gasoline is treated, and CARB explained that transportation fuel is regulated at the rack and through the low-carbon fuel standard, while cap-and-invest covers in-state tailpipe and smokestack emissions rather than full life-cycle emissions. CARB said it is open to using additional data, including SB 253 reporting, to improve fuel carbon-intensity estimates. The panel of outside experts largely agreed that the program must balance affordability, ambition, and leakage concerns, but they differed on how much allowance value should go to utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The Legislative Analyst’s Office emphasized that the Legislature should scrutinize CARB’s allocation choices now because they will be hard to change later. An IEMAC representative said the proposal appears to shift more allowance value to industry and utilities, which could reduce GGRF revenues, while EDF argued the cap could be tightened further in the near term without triggering price containment. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, warned that the proposal would reduce utility allowances and could raise costs for ratepayers and undermine early decarbonization investments. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• But there has been some strong feedback from superintendents in regards to the bill on a tweak that they
• But there has been some strong feedback from superintendents in regards to the bill on a tweak that they
• ><c> superintendent</c><00:11:51.440><c> uh</c> strong feedback from superintendent uh strong feedback
• have you all talked to uh Aea feedback have you all talked to uh Aea and<00:14:42.639><c> the</c><00
• in regards to this strong feed feedback in regards to this being<00:14:48.800><c> a</c><00:14:48.880

Bills: SB209, SB248, HB122, SB99, SB209, SB248, HB122, SB99

Keywords: sales tax exemption, Consumer Price Index, local government, clothing, school supplies, emergency preparedness, Alabama Administrative Procedure Act, APA, administrative law, judicial review, agency deference, Chevron deference, de novo review, contested case, state agency, regulatory power, individual liberty, statutory interpretation, rule interpretation, license revocation

Transcript Highlights:

• I think we're getting a little feedback. Thank you.
• We went job family by job family, having those agencies come in and provide feedback.
• Because it gives, it's of concern if we don't know that there was employee feedback.
• Feedback, the substantive feedback that you received from the employees and the unions concerning pay
• Are with HR, but we—have you heard any other substantive feedback?

Transcript Highlights:

• We did appreciate the feedback and the good conversation that was had during those meetings.
• We would plan to have a lot of stakeholder feedback in this process.
• Draft that we've received feedback on, and we've updated accordingly.
• Two supported it, and 24 did not offer any feedback.
• May revise feedback as soon as possible. May revise feedback as soon as possible. All right, now.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major topic was child care and early education, where the Department of Social Services and Department of Finance outlined proposed changes to absorb federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue reductions, shift some funding between child care programs, end funding for prospective pay implementation now that the federal requirement has been rescinded, adjust the alternative payment administration structure, and fund child care infrastructure grants and a Low-Income Investment Fund contract closeout. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the budget makes progress on the structural deficit but recommended maintaining the administration’s solution level, making reserve deposits, and avoiding new ongoing commitments; it also raised concerns about shifting reductions to the California Alternative Payment Program and about the proposed administrative-rate change. Committee members strongly criticized the proposed loss of child care slots and said they would oppose eliminating those slots, while also expressing support for child care as essential infrastructure. The committee then reviewed California State Preschool Program proposals. Finance and CDE described reductions to the preschool COLA from 2.41% to 2.01%, removal of prospective pay funding, and increases for the QRIS block grant, audit support, and rate reform implementation. Trailer bill language would codify age-based rate categories, inclusion-rate documentation, family fee collection rules, portability, and excused absences. CDE supported the QRIS increase and some attendance and family-fee changes, but warned that aligning three- and four-year-old rates could reduce support for three-year-olds and that the budget does not fully cover enrollment growth. Members also questioned whether the preschool and child care slot reductions should be reallocated rather than terminated, and the administration said the reductions were intended to reflect current utilization and avoid harm to currently enrolled families. The hearing then moved to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS said the May Revision includes a one-time CalFood augmentation, funding to cover federal SNAP administrative cost-share pressures, and additional staffing and technical assistance to implement HR 1 changes, including the able-bodied adults without dependents time limit and new non-citizen eligibility rules. The department estimated HR 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people, with roughly 806,000 adults potentially subject to the time limit and about 34,000 non-citizens expected to lose eligibility once fully implemented. Members pressed for stronger harm mitigation, including a $98 million backfill to protect families from losing food benefits, and raised concerns about county workload and the “chilling effect” on immigrant participation. The final portion of the transcript began the IHSS presentation, noting a revised budget of $33.7 billion total funds and $12.8 billion General Fund, with proposed reductions tied to Medi-Cal asset-limit changes and other federal conformity items.

Transcript Highlights:

• growth are done in a way that are reflective of the actual needs that you all give us through the feedback
• So thank you for bringing your important feedback and starting this conversation.
• We're going to get feedback from them.
• And really talking from an aspirational level and then hearing what their feedback and tying that feedback
• and the value that sits with that feedback to the plan was a very smooth transition.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on coherence in California’s education planning and reporting systems, especially the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and related grant plans. Committee chairs and members described widespread frustration with duplicative, lengthy, and sometimes conflicting reporting requirements, while emphasizing that the goal was not to reduce accountability but to make planning more useful, stable, and student-centered. State Superintendent Tony Thurmond also previewed the Governor’s education budget priorities, including expanded learning, community schools, universal transitional kindergarten, literacy supports, and concerns about the proposed Prop. 98 deferral. Panelists from the State Board of Education, Fresno County Superintendent of Schools, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office said the LCAP was intended to balance local flexibility with statewide transparency, but has become overloaded by repeated revisions and additional requirements. They argued for fewer core reporting elements, more stability over time, better alignment of planning cycles, and integrated systems that reduce duplication. Fresno County staff described a multi-year calendar and support tools that help districts manage timelines, but said these tools only ease the burden rather than solve the underlying problem. The LAO noted that some newer plans, such as expanded learning and transportation plans, are narrative-heavy and often less informative than separate reporting requirements. Local district leaders and county officials described the practical effects of the current system: staff time diverted from instruction, multiple portals and forms, audit risk aversion, and planning documents that can exceed 100 pages. Several superintendents said coherent systems work best when districts have clear priorities, stable governance, and aligned budgets, and when state requirements are predictable and tied to outcomes like literacy, attendance, and student achievement. The California Federation of Teachers added that coherence also depends on meaningful collaboration with educators, classified staff, parents, and communities. Committee members repeatedly asked whether the state should streamline reporting, create a uniform portal, or develop a more unified grant-reporting structure, and Thurmond said the department was piloting a simplified common form and was willing to work with the Legislature and districts on broader solutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> NFPA standards in response to feedback NFPA standards in response to feedback they<00:03:34.080>
• So, um positive feedback from them.
• There's plenty of feedback.
• So the feedback that I'm shades of gray.
• </c><01:36:34.320><c> they'll</c> I there's plenty of feedback. they'll I there's plenty of feedback.

Keywords: Call to Order and Roll Call- 00:00:03 Summary of Staff Report on the Firefighter Commission Minimum Training Standards and Administrative Spending- 00:01:00 Staff Update on Child Fatality and Near Fatality External Review Panel 00:16:00 Child Fatality and Near Fatality Review Panel Representatives Available for Questions-00:39:34 Kentucky State Police & Finance Cabinet Status Update on Kentucky Statewide Emergency Responder Voice System-00:52:35 Adjournment-01:46:24, 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from December 19 and June 12, then received a staff report on the Kentucky Fire Commission’s minimum training standards and administrative spending. Staff explained that the commission’s current minimum training hours are 115 for volunteer firefighters and 300 for paid firefighters, down from 150 and 400 before January 1, 2023, after the commission removed elective classes not directly tied to NFPA standards. The report found the commission’s certification testing aligns fully with NFPA standards, but recommended that the commission formally promulgate regulations establishing the reduced training hours. On finances, staff said the commission complied with the first statutory cap on administrative reimbursements to KCTCS, but could not verify compliance with a second, more specific cap because the finance system does not break out program-level costs and the statute is vague. Staff recommended the commission work with KCTCS to fix that issue and suggested the General Assembly may wish to clarify the statute. After questions about reimbursement levels and investment income, the committee voted to accept the report. The committee then heard an update on the Kentucky Child Fatality and Near Fatality External Review Panel. Staff reported that the panel has implemented two of three prior recommendations: it revised its agency notification letter to clearly state the 90-day response deadline and added response prompts and checkboxes to improve completeness. The third recommendation, to adopt formal written procedures, remains in progress; staff said the panel plans to develop those procedures alongside its new case management system. The panel is meeting its statutory membership and meeting requirements, but agency responses to its recommendations have been inconsistent: 48% were timely and appropriate in 2022, 36% in 2023, and 82% in 2024, though only three of nine timely 2024 responses were fully complete. Staff also described the new case management system project, funded with $200,000 in one-time money, and recommended the panel consult budget staff about use of those funds beyond fiscal year 2025. They reissued the recommendation that the panel develop written procedures for case review, findings, recommendations, and annual reports. Committee members raised concerns about the lack of penalties for noncompliance, the volume and length of panel meetings, and technology barriers to reviewing cases, and one member said the panel’s findings should inform future legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm interested in the Grant Marsh Bridge and the construction of it, and I like to give feedback.
• “Providers not only offered feedback on pain points.
• And again, the appendix that’s available online will give you the summary of that feedback.”
• As we developed the survey, we wanted the providers to have the opportunity to give the feedback that
• What other states are doing this, and what are their success rates and feedback?

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's the only feedback that I've gotten is that we really want, when are you running?
• Again, the feedback that I've got— So I think people will be very happy about that.
• Again, the feedback that I've gotten, even when people talk about a future election that I might be in
• , the feedback that I've been getting is that people want—it is clear to me that all your constituents
• I've heard people even give me feedback about that now.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first took up Senate Bill 982. Members adopted a House committee substitute that updated the bill to reflect recently enacted sex offense classifications and added language related to sexual violent predator civil commitment, including permission for the Department of Mental Health to contract with the Department of Corrections for housing. After questions about the civil commitment process and registry-related provisions, the committee adopted two House committee amendments, rolled them into the substitute, and voted the bill do pass by a vote of 14 aye, 1 no, and 1 present. The committee then approved House Bill 3414 by a vote of 12 yes, 1 no, and 3 present. Next, it considered a combined substitute for House Bills 3434, 3460, and 2628, which dealt with emergency contraception and related health care facility language. Members discussed whether the substitute should include religious objection protections and whether the facility definition was broad enough for rural clinics. After adopting an amendment clarifying that emergency contraception does not include medication approved to terminate a pregnancy, the committee adopted the substitute and voted the combined bills do pass by 11 aye, 4 no, and 1 present. In public hearing, the committee heard Senate Joint Resolution 87, which would place the election of sheriffs in the Missouri Constitution and preserve local election of sheriffs, with carve-outs for St. Louis County, St. Charles County, Jackson County, and the City of St. Louis. The sponsor and supporting witnesses argued it would protect local control and accountability, while members asked about removal procedures and the role of the Attorney General versus local prosecutors. Supporters, including the Osage County sheriff and the interim sheriff of the City of St. Louis, testified in favor; no opposition testified. The committee also heard House Bills 1868 and 3257, identical bills creating an offense for impeding, threatening, or harassing first responders after an oral warning to stay back. Sponsors said the measure was intended to protect officers, EMS, firefighters, and others from interference at scenes, and supporters from ambulance, physician, and fire service groups backed the bill, with a suggested cleanup to remove the outdated term “ambulance driver.” Finally, the committee heard House Bill 3017, which would create the offense of permitting a public nuisance on property after repeated documented complaints and allow authorities to secure or board up nuisance properties. The sponsor and Kansas City police supported it as a tool for public safety, while members raised concerns about landlord liability, due process, and whether the felony penalty and boarding costs were too burdensome; Kansas City police testified in support and no opposition was heard.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's the only feedback that I've gotten is that we really want...
• That's the only feedback that I've gotten is that we really want, when are you running?
• Again, the feedback that I've got... So I think people will be very happy about that.
• To call for a meeting and get some feedback about why you're doing a certain thing or a certain way.
• I've heard people even give me feedback about that now.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 982, adopting a House committee substitute and two House committee amendments before voting the bill do pass 14-1 with one present. The substitute added cleanup language to reflect recently enacted sex offense classifications and made changes related to sexual violent predator civil commitment housing, allowing the Department of Mental Health to contract with the Department of Corrections for secure placement when DMH runs out of bed space. One amendment required sex offender registry entries to remain under the offender’s name and biological sex as listed at the time of the offense, and another clarified age-related language without changing existing “Romeo and Juliet” protections. The committee then passed House Bill 3414 12-1 with three present, and House Bills 3434, 3460, and 2628 as a combined House committee substitute 11-4 with one present after adopting an amendment. That package focused on emergency contraception and related health care facility provisions; members discussed language clarifying that emergency contraception does not include FDA-approved medication to terminate a pregnancy, and concerns were raised about combining the bills and about religious-objection issues for providers. The committee also heard Senate Joint Resolution 87, which would place the office of sheriff in the Missouri Constitution and preserve election of sheriffs by county voters, with carve-outs discussed for certain jurisdictions; testimony from the sponsor, a sheriff, and the interim sheriff of St. Louis emphasized local accountability and public safety, while some members questioned removal procedures and the role of the Attorney General. Later, the committee heard House Bills 1868 and 3257, identical bills creating a Class D misdemeanor for impeding, threatening, or harassing first responders after an oral warning and within a defined distance. Sponsors and witnesses from law enforcement, ambulance, fire, and physician groups said the measure was intended to protect responders and bystanders during volatile scenes, while members asked about crowd-control training, the 25-foot distance, and how harassment would be judged in emotionally charged situations. The committee also heard House Bill 3017, which would create the offense of permitting a public nuisance for property owners or controllers who knowingly allow repeated illegal activity on their property; after three documented complaints or observations, authorities could secure the property and trespassers could be arrested. Members debated whether the felony penalty was too severe, how landlords would be notified, and whether the bill created an unfunded mandate, though Kansas City police testified in support and the bill sponsor argued it would give law enforcement a tool to address repeat nuisance properties.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we worked hard to hear from a broad group of stakeholders through feedback on draft rules.
• We held From a broad group of stakeholders through feedback on draft rules, we held live town halls and
• We put out draft rules on our website and opened it up to anyone who wants to give feedback.
• about ownership requirements for licensees, and we included that—” “Informal feedback right now, the
• Let's go to that provision, because I know we've had a lot of feedback on that.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules met to review Missouri marijuana microbusiness rule amendments, especially 19 CSR 100-1.060 and 19 CSR 100-1.190. The Department of Cannabis Regulation explained that the changes were intended to clarify what it means for a microbusiness to be “owned and operated” by eligible individuals, move compliance review earlier in the application process, and address repeated instances where licenses were later found to be controlled by ineligible or noncompliant parties. The department said it had used stakeholder outreach, town halls, listening sessions, and public comments in drafting the rules, and noted that 25 standalone comments were received during formal rulemaking. Committee members focused heavily on whether the rules were too broad, whether they effectively punished applicants for past agency revocations, and whether the department had clear authority to impose a lifetime ban on people denied or revoked under the ownership-and-operation provisions. Several members argued the language should be narrowed to intentional or egregious violations and better tied to specific conduct rather than prior agency action. Witnesses from the public, including applicants and attorneys, testified that the department’s guidance on “predatory practices” and acceptable ownership structures had been unclear, that some applicants relied on consultant arrangements later deemed problematic, and that similar agreements were treated inconsistently. Others supported stronger enforcement, saying the rules were needed to prevent manipulation of social equity applicants and preserve the constitutional requirements of the program. The committee also discussed training and technical assistance requirements, the five-day document deadline, and whether the department should provide more concrete guidance or model forms. Members raised concerns that the proposed definitions could burden small or first-time business owners and that some applicants might be unfairly penalized despite acting in good faith. No substantive vote on the rule package was taken; instead, the committee voted to adjourn and return on Thursday after working with the department on possible corrections, clarifications, or amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• important legislation. for your yes vote, and I will certainly take feedback as we continue to work
• Members, I have gotten a lot of feedback from schools, specifically from school leaders and teachers
• As I mentioned in the intro, I will gladly take your feedback here.
• So I'm open to feedback here and how we can make this program more robust, and this is something I'll
• So I'm open to feedback here and how we can make this program more robust, and this is something I'll

Bills: SB1726, SB1236, SB1633, SB1413, SB1317, SB1360, SB1342, SB1477, SB1189, SB1546, SB1524, SB1338, SB1193, SB1812, SB1617

Keywords: higher education, graduate instructors, training program, academic integrity, First Amendment rights, administrative reporting, education, consolidation, board, public schools, resident tuition, Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, state scholarships, financial aid, immigration status, undocumented students, noncitizen students, lawfully present, postsecondary education benefits, college tuition

Summary: The Senate Education Committee heard and advanced a large slate of education bills. Early measures included SB 1726, requiring formal training for university teaching assistants before they teach classes and evaluate students, with emphasis on First Amendment rights; SB 1236, creating an Administrative Report Consolidation Act to reduce duplicative reporting by schools and agencies; SB 1633, codifying existing higher education residency tuition practices; SB 1413, requiring notice to parents when a teacher is emergency certified and limiting adjunct teachers to 270 clock hours per semester; SB 1317, allowing career teacher status to be portable across districts with local board approval; and SB 1360, expanding the state’s math initiative by restoring instructional coaches and creating a math office at the State Department of Education. Most of these bills passed on favorable votes, with SB 1413 drawing some concern over teacher shortages and the adjunct-hour cap, but still passing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would say that overall positive feedback has been given in to the state being involved in this solution
• I would say that overall positive feedback has been given in to the state being involved in this solution
• I would say that overall positive feedback has been given in to the state being involved in this solution
• I would say that overall positive feedback has been given to the state being involved in this solution
• I would say that overall positive feedback has been given to the state being involved in this solution

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee approved the minutes from its June 30 meeting and then considered Capital Project 2515, a request from the Pease Development Authority Division of Ports and Harbors to spend up to $125,000 from the Harbor Dredging and Pier Maintenance Fund to replace a deteriorated 99-foot floating dock at Rye Harbor. Acting Director Richard Hartley said the dock is used for passenger loading and unloading for charters and whale-watching tours and is in poor condition. Representative Edgar moved approval, Representative Wiler seconded, and the motion carried. The committee then received several informational items, including quarterly and maintenance reports from the Department of Administrative Services, the Community College System of New Hampshire, and the Pease Development Authority. It also heard a presentation from the Department of Health and Human Services on Capital Project 2516, the Beneficiary Service Improvement project supporting closed-loop referrals and related systems. DHHS described the project as a mix of Medicaid enterprise functions and New Hampshire Care Connections tools, including provider modules, third-party liability, event notifications, and closed-loop referrals to connect health and human service providers. Officials said the project is largely federally funded, with capital funds representing only part of the overall effort. Members asked about the accounting breakdown, prior committee review, provider participation, patient experience, and public response. Representative Burr questioned whether the project had been fully presented previously and raised concerns about the scope and necessity of the $8 million effort; DHHS responded that earlier work was discussed in other committees and that the current presentation covered only capital funds. Senator Waters asked about user response and patient experience, and DHHS said feedback has been generally positive but the system is still in design and implementation. In response to questions about participation, DHHS said 84 providers are currently on the network and clarified that a “provider” generally means an individual organization or health system, not each individual clinician. The committee also set its next meeting for December 9 at 9:00 a.m. at Granite Place, Room 228, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• When we actually take the input and feedback from our community members, we're going to be... ...policymaking
• When we actually take the input and feedback from our community members, we can make sure we're addressing
• engineering, public health, supply chain management, and environmental science, based directly on feedback
• And yes, we have a lot of input and feedback from the private industry, obviously, along those lines.
• Of course, we're not going to solve all of California's problems with one discussion, but your feedback

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Economic Development, Growth, and Household Impact held an informational hearing in San Diego focused on “Making Sense of California’s Economy: Real Cost Pressures and Household Impacts Facing San Diego.” Chair Salas and Assemblymember Darshana Patel opened by emphasizing affordability, housing, and the importance of bringing state policy discussions into the community. The first panel featured leaders from Cal State San Marcos and the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, who described the region’s innovation ecosystem, the university’s role in social mobility and workforce development, and the importance of partnerships with K-12 schools, community colleges, military installations, and industry. They also highlighted regional strengths in life sciences, aerospace and defense, advanced manufacturing, clean energy, and venture-backed innovation, while warning that housing costs, federal research cuts, permitting delays, and small-business fragility threaten growth and talent retention. Committee members asked about collaboration among higher education institutions and what state policy changes could help. Panelists said the region’s universities are complementary rather than competitive and stressed the value of public-private partnerships, social innovation, and aligning academic programs with employer needs. On policy, they urged faster permitting, possible regulatory sandboxes, stronger research investment, support for cross-border trade and manufacturing, and more housing affordability to keep workers in the region. The second panel centered on small business and entrepreneurship, with testimony from Hydrostasis founder Dr. Debbie Chen, Amai co-founder Sven Davison, and Asian Business Association San Diego CEO Jason Pagal. Chen described building a hydration-monitoring wearable, the barriers women founders face in accessing capital, and the importance of SBDC, Stella Foundation, and university internship support. Davison described Amai’s edible cup business and how tariffs, supply-chain costs, and financing constraints forced the company to pivot manufacturing plans. Pagal presented survey data showing high relocation intent, difficulty hiring, and low confidence among businesses, and recommended expanded technical assistance, regional cost-of-living adjustments, and small-business affordability zones. During questioning, members discussed targeted procurement and local incentive models, the role of SBDC and other support networks, and how to better tailor state programs to local conditions. Public comment came from the California Southern Small Business Development Corporation, which stressed that access to affordable capital remains a major challenge and noted the volume of loan guarantee requests coming from San Diego. No formal votes were taken; the hearing concluded with closing remarks from both members underscoring the need to use local testimony to shape future state policy and support California’s economy, families, and small businesses.

Transcript Highlights:

• We received a lot of technical feedback from DHI. Us over the course of this bill.
• However, we still heard back from the agency when we asked for feedback that they weren't sure because
• Representative Mueller, any feedback on that? No.
• Now, based on some of the feedback from the kinship licensing task force that we received on the...
• QPI Minnesota has directly gathered feedback from relative... ...and kinship families.

Bills: HF1367, HF2732, HF1897, HF1424, HF1383, HF2728, HF2863, HF1685, HF2929

Keywords: child maltreatment, child abuse, neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, sex trafficking, labor trafficking, human trafficking, child protection, local welfare agency, county social services, Minnesota Department of Human Services, judicial review, district court appeal, venue, out-of-state abuse, cross-border investigation, Minnesota child welfare, family assessment, maltreatment determination