Transcript Highlights:

• should pay?
• should pay?
• I pay the same for concrete as a builder does. I pay the same for steel.
• you have to pay for.
• I don’t want to be, okay, because we’re willing to pay, and we do pay our share.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> to have to pay more? to have to pay more?
• military pay would be that pay that military pay would be divided<01:21:22.320><c> and</c><01:21:22.560
• </c><01:45:44.800><c> is</c><01:45:45.119><c> pay</c> ruled that military retainer pay is pay ruled that
• </c> retainer pay is pay and not property. retainer pay is pay and not property.
• </c> retired pay. retired pay.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That means we pay more.
• A lot of people are paying. A lot of people are paying $0 in premium.
• You have relied on us to pay for all of your expenses. It’s time for you to pay up.
• We’re saying we want you to pay your fair share because we’re saying we want you to pay your fair share
• How am I going to pay it and so on?

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that going to slow down the pay on authorization versus the pay on enrollment or pay on attendance
• But presumably, that's what a private-pay individual would be paying—100%.
• In that instance, state government's paying more than a private-pay individual would be paying for the
• on attendance to pay on all. ...when that pilot group went from pay on attendance to pay on all, and
• There's language saying we shall pay. We're choosing not to pay.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> taxed, who pays the tax? taxed, who pays the tax?
• It does pay groceries. It does pay for gas.
• It does pay for groceries. It does pay for gas.
• They pay about 18% of what they would pay if they had to pay on their total assessed value.
• They pay about 18% of what they would pay if they had to pay on their total assessed value.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'll start with the commission pay plan.
• So I'll start with the commission pay plan.
• Colonel Gardner can explain this in greater depth, but the pay plan, the new pay plan, would essentially
• We pay them per diem.
• If you're not paying somebody the full CEC over a 20-year career, their pay is significantly less than

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee reviewed the Idaho State Police budget, including the Division of Idaho State Police, POST Academy, and the Brand Inspection Division. Legislative analyst Noah Peterson outlined funding sources, staffing levels, recent budget enhancements, and the fiscal year 2027 requests. For the state police division, the main new request was a $12.6 million commissioned officer pay plan tied to a proposed increase in the vehicle registration “project choice” fee from $3 to $12, along with a $500,000 federal grant increase for commercial vehicle safety, a $551,500 mobile live-scan pilot, and $3.2 million in replacement items. Peterson and Colonel Gardner explained that the pay plan is intended to make ISP compensation more competitive and to fund base pay in a way that allows future CEC increases to apply to the full salary rather than only part of it. Colonel Gardner gave extensive testimony on staffing shortages, vacancy patterns in districts such as Lewiston and Idaho Falls, and the difficulty of retaining trained troopers after three to five years when other agencies offer higher pay. He said the agency is using overtime, reduced travel, and strategic deployment to cover gaps, but warned that vacancies are affecting public safety and that the proposed pay plan is needed to stabilize staffing. Committee members questioned the size of the fee increase, the sustainability of the plan, and the effect on trooper pay. Gardner said the request was based on what is needed to sustain the plan for about 10 years and emphasized that commissioned officers and troopers are the same group in this context. The committee also heard that a trooper injured in a fentanyl seizure the day before was receiving medical evaluation, and members expressed support for ISP personnel. The committee then reviewed POST, where Peterson said the academy has 31 FTP and no ongoing fiscal year 2027 enhancement requests beyond $324,100 for replacement items. Administrator Brad Johnson explained that POST’s basic academy costs about $10,700 per student for a 14-week course, while ISP’s internal trooper training and first-year costs are much higher because they include equipment, wages, room and board, and other expenses. He said students sign a two-year repayment agreement if they leave the profession after training. Members asked about agency-run academies, college programs, and whether the training model could be extended, and Johnson said POST remains the only accredited academy in Idaho and has received top national accreditation scores. Finally, the Brand Inspection Division budget was reviewed. Peterson said the division is funded by the State Brand Board Fund and has no new ongoing requests for fiscal year 2027, only $288,100 in replacement items, including six trucks and computer equipment. Brand Inspector Cody Burlisle said most inspectors are POST-certified and perform both regulatory inspections and law-enforcement duties. Committee members praised the division for keeping vehicles in service for high mileage and for helping livestock producers during gathers and inspections. The meeting ended with instructions for members to attend work groups and a reminder that votes on transfers, rescissions, and reductions would occur later in the week, followed by adjournment until the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• The teacher pay allotment, which we call the teacher pay and retention allotment, will be reflected in
• And do they pay you a fee to help them implement it? They do not pay us a dime.
• So, all of our pay scales are always being reviewed.
• A lot of teachers pay a lot of money.
• Performance-Based Pay Structures Superintendents have voiced concerns about the negative impact of pay-for-performance

Bills: SB26, SB 26

Keywords: teacher compensation, education funding, public school educators, teacher retention, teacher designation, SB 26, Texas Property Code, colonia, colonias, Spanish translation, bilingual contract, real estate contract, executory contract, residential property, border county, international border, economically distressed area, consumer protection, language access, translator certified in Spanish

Transcript Highlights:

• paying in advance.
• Is that going to slow down the pay on authorization versus the pay on enrollment or pay on attendance
• States may adopt pay on authorized enrollment, and states may pay prospectively.
• There's language saying we shall pay; we're choosing not to pay.
• There's language saying we shall pay, we're choosing not to pay.

Summary: The committee first heard the Office of the Governor’s FY 2027 budget request from Adam Gresham. He explained the office’s staffing and noted a $500,000 core reduction, along with a reallocation of three positions and about $168,000 from the governor’s office to the mansion operating fund to better reflect where those employees work. Members asked about the National Guard emergency line, which Gresham said had already spent about $63,457 in FY 2026 and could be used again for disaster activations, though he did not expect to use the full $4 million. He also said the agricultural resiliency transfer fund had not been used and had no current transfer plans. Several members commented on the size of the governor’s cut and whether the judiciary and other offices were also being asked to reduce budgets. No votes were taken. The committee then moved to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Office of Childhood and early childhood-related budget items. DESE staff described funding for the Office of Childhood, MoQPK child care provider grants, LEA pre-K grants, early childhood special education, Parents as Teachers, First Steps, preschool coordination, after-school programs, and child care subsidy. Members asked extensively about the MoQPK grants, including why Head Start providers were eligible, how curriculum approval works, and what safeguards exist against fraud or improper payments. DESE said it conducts physical inspections, desk reviews, payment-system checks, and investigations as needed, and that it had not had findings in this area. Some members questioned whether DESE or DSS was the right home for early childhood programs, while others defended the partnership and the role of early educators in identifying child needs. A major portion of the discussion focused on early childhood special education and the child care subsidy program. DESE explained that First Steps serves children birth to age three, while early childhood special education covers ages three to five and is driven by IEP eligibility; members asked for more data on diagnoses, trends, and how many children come off IEPs. The committee also discussed the child care subsidy budget and the governor’s proposed shift to paying providers based on authorization and at the beginning of the month. DESE said the change is being piloted, that a wait list is expected to begin around March 1, and that a May rollout is being considered, but only if software testing and fiscal projections show the system is sustainable. Members expressed frustration that promised changes had been delayed and that providers had been told different timelines, while DESE said the delay was driven by software issues, fiscal caution, and the need to avoid repeating prior payment problems. The hearing ended with the committee in recess before later resuming discussion of the subsidy program; no final votes or actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, private pay will reimburse or pay these ambulance providers $950.80.
• Medicare will pay an average of $57,624, and Medicaid will pay an average of $28,067.
• But per trip we pay a certain price, and we also pay mileage.
• what Medicare pays.
• pay for EMS?

Bills: HB0004

Keywords: medical assistance, birthing centers, healthcare, Medicaid, Wyoming, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's to pay claims to victims of crime.
• pay plan.
• pay plan.
• The new pay plan significantly increased what we pay CNAs and RNs and LPNs.
• We’re already paying for a pharmacy there. We’re already paying for security.

Summary: The committee considered a series of appropriation, transfer, and review items, approving most requests in Sections B through J. These included temporary appropriations for state technology upgrades, personnel management, court reporters and interpreters, crime victim claims, juvenile sex offender assessments, radiation lab testing, higher education workforce grants, an ARPA grant for the UAFS LPN program, an IIJA grant for geological/critical minerals work, a restricted reserve transfer for 102 State Police vehicles, a transfer to the Arkansas Heroes Program, several cash fund requests for the Real Estate Commission HVAC and AV needs, and overtime appropriations for Emergency Management and Military. One budget classification transfer request from the Commissioner of State Lands for $250,000 to cover operating expenses tied to a new building was discussed at length but failed on the vote after questions about the lease and operating costs. A major portion of the meeting focused on a $25.7 million pay plan appropriation request for 15 agencies. Members questioned why the Department of Human Services had not requested additional pay-plan dollars for human development centers, where DHS acknowledged staffing shortages, high turnover, and heavy overtime but said the issue was not lack of pay-plan funding. DHS was asked to provide a written plan to address staffing problems. The Department of Corrections testified that the pay plan had improved retention and hiring, and committee members asked for follow-up data on vacancies and staffing outcomes. Members also clarified that the pay-plan request was appropriation only, not new funding, and approved it. The committee then reviewed fund reports, including the restricted reserve, Budget Stabilization Trust Fund, Tobacco Settlement, State Central Services, Education Adequacy, Medicaid Trust Fund, IIJA, and Revenue Services transfer reports. DHS and DFA were questioned closely about the Medicaid Trust Fund, with members noting a $90 million February draw and asking about projected year-end balances; DFA and DHS said February was a high-expense, low-revenue month and projected the fund would remain solvent through the fiscal year, ending between $150 million and $200 million, while a second $100 million set-aside is planned for FY27. The committee also discussed a state hospital damage report, where DHS explained that insurance proceeds would not fully cover the repair costs because of depreciation and the age of the buildings; members expressed concern that the state would recover far less than originally expected, and DHS said any additional insurance recovery would be limited and returned to restricted reserve.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:26:09.520><c> to</c><00:26:09.840><c> produce</c> pay to produce pay to produce food<00:26:12.399
• Pay cash? Like total poor-person fumble. You would never pay cash when you could get a mortgage.
• What this is... about like how could you possibly pay a about like how could you possibly pay a couple
• </c> he just was like are you kidding pay he just was like are you kidding pay cash<00:31:53.080><c>
• </c> liquidate $300,000 of his stocks pay liquidate $300,000 of his stocks pay capital<00:32:08.360><

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> remitted to pay the actual water bill. remitted to pay the actual water bill.
• </c> something with the money and not paying something with the money and not paying the<00:09:24.959
• </c> using it to pay for something different. using it to pay for something different.
• </c> that tenant pays for utilities. Correct? that tenant pays for utilities. Correct?
• </c> and then they don't pay. and then they don't pay.

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 25 February, 2026; 9:00 A.M., 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any person who knowingly fails to pay the tax, pay the estimated tax, make returns, or supply information
• Less than 1% of Washingtonians would pay this tax.
• Dollars pay the budget, not percentages.
• the top 1% pay about 4.1%.
• The top earners already pay 37%, and now we're asking them to pay 9.9.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> to pay for your tax liability. to pay for your tax liability.
• </c> worker pay ratios. worker pay ratios.
• </c> ability to pay. ability to pay.
• </c> the other taxes that they pay. the other taxes that they pay.
• </c> exorbitant CEO pay. exorbitant CEO pay.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, they'll pay no Missouri sales tax.
• aren't paying an income tax, to people with disabilities To retirees who currently aren't paying an
• They will pay more in any service.
• Every time they ask for a pay raise, somebody said something about a pay raise.
• We don't want to pay you $15 an hour. We don't want to pay you $30 an hour.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Colonel Gardner can explain this in greater depth, but the pay plan, the new pay plan, would essentially
• We pay them per diem.
• We pay them per diem.
• If you're not paying somebody the full CEC over a 20-year career, their pay is significantly less than
• POST would pay for different costs.

Summary: The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee reviewed the Idaho State Police budget, including the Division of Idaho State Police, POST, and the Brand Inspection Division. Legislative analyst Noah Peterson outlined current staffing, fund sources, and proposed FY 2027 requests. For the Division of Idaho State Police, the major request was a $12.6 million commissioned officer pay plan funded by an increase in the vehicle registration-related Project Choice fee from $3 to $12, along with a $500,000 commercial vehicle safety grant increase, a $551,500 mobile live scan pilot, and $3.23 million in replacement items, including patrol vehicles and ballistic vests. Peterson and Colonel Gardner explained that the pay plan is intended to address long-standing recruitment and retention problems, especially in patrol districts with heavy vacancies. Colonel Gardner gave extensive testimony on staffing shortages, saying some districts require troopers to be temporarily housed in hotels to cover calls, and that pay compression and the current structure of project-choice compensation are driving officers away after about four to five years. He said the new plan would move more of trooper compensation into base pay and make future CEC increases apply to the full wage. Members asked about the fee increase, the effect on county and city agencies, unspent personnel funds, and whether the state is losing trained officers after investing heavily in them. Gardner and finance officer Christine Otto said overtime is absorbing some vacancy savings, and Otto later estimated the cost to train and equip an ISP trooper at about $231,600. The committee then reviewed POST, where Peterson said the academy has 31 FTP and no ongoing FY 2027 requests beyond $324,100 for replacement vehicles, building repairs, and equipment. Administrator Brad Johnson said a 14-week Patrol Academy costs about $10,700 per student, and explained that POST-certified academy graduates sign a two-year repayment agreement if they leave the profession. Members asked about agency-run academies, college academy programs, and whether POST costs are changing as more agencies develop their own training. Johnson said POST remains the state’s accredited basic-training provider and highlighted its national award of excellence. Finally, the Brand Inspection Division budget was presented. Peterson said the division has 41.42 FTP, is funded by the State Brand Board Fund, and is requesting $288,100 in replacement items, mainly six trucks and some laptops/tablets. Brand Inspector Cody Burlisle said most full-time inspectors are POST-certified and perform both regulatory inspections and law-enforcement duties. Members praised the division’s work and its practice of keeping vehicles in service for high mileage. The meeting ended with instructions about upcoming work groups and a reminder that budget votes would occur later in the week.

Transcript Highlights:

• So Medicare Advantage, instead of paying fee for service, they're paying a capitated rate up front to
• Now we're paying $200. And the sicker... Patrick: ...we used to pay $2. Now we're paying $200.
• So instead of paying 80% of those large claims, they're paying around 20% of those large claims.
• So instead of paying 80% of those large claims, they're paying around 20% of those large claims.
• And so there was a portion where a member would pay a deductible and then they would pay 25% up until

Summary: The committee received an update from Grant Wallace on the state employee Medicare Advantage group plan and the ongoing rebid with UnitedHealthcare. Wallace said the agency is exploring “decoupling” the medical and pharmacy portions of the plan, and that preliminary estimates suggested potential savings of about $100 to $200 per participant per month. He said the final CMS rate-setting process would conclude in April, with a revised contract amendment likely to come before the committee in May or June after review by the EBD Advisory Commission and State Board of Finance. He also clarified that the plan covers post-65 teacher and state employee retirees, including retirees from state agencies and K-12 public schools. Representatives from Segal Consulting then gave a broader presentation on Medicare Advantage and Part D market trends, reviewing Arkansas’s prior decision to adopt a Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan and the savings generated since the 2023 RFP. They explained that the Inflation Reduction Act significantly changed Part D financing by shifting more federal support into a direct subsidy tied to risk scores, which makes accurate risk adjustment more important and creates a larger difference between Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans and standalone Part D plans. They said this has led to a growing divergence in funding, especially for standalone Part D, and is the main reason decoupling medical and pharmacy coverage is being considered. Committee members asked about how the risk-score changes affect costs and members. Segal said the new structure has reduced member out-of-pocket costs, with the annual cap now at $2,000 and many members reaching it after roughly $600 to $800 in spending, but that the plan absorbs more of the cost. They also said the market appears to be adjusting through annual bids, and that a decoupled structure could allow the state to capture more favorable funding on the Part D side. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after being told to expect further information once the April rate notice and renewal proposal are available.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's to pay claims to victims of crime.
• But getting to my question, with the pay plan, prior to the pay plan, we had a differential pay plan
• "A differential pay plan.
• The new pay plan significantly increased what we pay CNAs and RNs and LPNs.
• We're already paying for a pharmacy there. We're already paying for security.

Summary: The committee considered a series of appropriation, fund transfer, and reserve requests across multiple agencies. Section B temporary appropriations included funding for state technology upgrades, personnel management staffing and IT skills assessment, court reporters and interpreters, crime victim claims, juvenile sex offender assessments, radiation lab testing, and higher education workforce grants and credentialing pathways. Additional items covered an ARPA grant for the University of Arkansas Fort Smith LPN program, an IIJA grant for the Oil and Gas Commission’s critical minerals work, a restricted reserve transfer for State Police vehicle purchases, a transfer to the Arkansas Heroes Program, and cash fund requests for the Real Estate Commission’s AV system and HVAC work. Most of these items were approved by voice vote. One budget classification transfer request from the Commissioner of State Lands drew extended questioning and was ultimately not approved. Members questioned the $250,000 transfer to operating expenses tied to the purchase of a West Little Rock office building, the ongoing lease costs at the prior location, and whether the agency had adequately planned for building-related expenses. After discussion, the motion failed, and members told the agency to tighten spending and return if needed. The committee then took up 15 pay plan appropriation requests totaling $25.7 million and approved them after discussion with DFA, DHS, Corrections, and the State Board of Election Commissioners. Members focused heavily on DHS staffing shortages at human development centers, where officials said vacancies and turnover were driven by overtime and burnout rather than pay alone; one member asked DHS to submit a written plan to address the issue. Corrections reported the pay plan had improved hiring and retention. The committee also approved overtime appropriations for Emergency Management and Military. Reports on reserve funds, the Budget Stabilization Trust Fund, tobacco settlement, State Central Services, Education Adequacy, Medicaid Trust, IIJA, and revenue transfer activity were received. The Medicaid Trust Fund report prompted significant concern about February’s $90 million draw; DHS said the month was unusually high because of cash-flow timing and that the fund should end the year with a balance between $150 million and $200 million, while lawmakers noted a second $100 million set-aside is planned for FY27. The final discussion centered on DHS’s state hospital damage claim and reconstruction funding, where members expressed disappointment that insurance reimbursement would likely return only about $1.8 million now and possibly about $97,000 more later, far less than the roughly $5 million initially expected. DHS explained the policy was based on actual cash value and depreciation for old buildings, and said the work would proceed on Unit 3 for secured restoration because it was the most cost-effective option.

Transcript Highlights:

• Current law exempts them from paying the swept. Instead, they pay the utility property tax.
• The generators are paying that and so they'll just continue to pay that. Thank you.
• </c> continue to pay that. Thank you. continue to pay that. Thank you.
• paying that rate?
• </c> let's pay attention to what's going on. let's pay attention to what's going on.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 302, which would allow the state treasurer to invest public funds in precious metals and digital assets. The sponsor was not present, so Representative Urs introduced the bill briefly and said he did not know much about it. No one from the Treasury Department testified, and members repeatedly noted the treasurer’s absence. Susan Elme testified against the bill, arguing that these investments are highly volatile and contrary to the treasury’s duty to remain stable and liquid. She said the bill should be killed. In questioning, she estimated the 5% cap in the bill would amount to roughly $10 million, depending on available funds, and said such investing would be more appropriate for an individual day trader than for the state treasury. Members also discussed prior legislative experience with Bitcoin-related proposals and raised concerns about whether the treasury had the staff expertise to manage commodity or digital asset investing. The committee did not take a final vote; instead, it agreed to hold a work session and seek additional information from the treasurer, with a plan to revisit the bill on April 1.

Transcript Highlights:

• They pay into it.
• So they're already paying for that.
• But if the business is going to pay for it, why does the business then have to pay this as well?
• You don't have to pay anything else.
• They were paying all along.

Summary: The committee took up a series of bills in its final meeting, beginning with House Bill 200, which had previously been left on the table on a tie vote. The committee voted to bring it back and then approved it as amended on a 7-2 vote. House Bill 38, dealing with coverage for complex rehabilitation technology devices and allowing up to two devices in a three-year period, received testimony in support and was advanced on a 9-0 vote. Members then heard House Bill 270, which would require certain public works projects to contribute to apprenticeship and training programs or the state apprenticeship fund. Supporters argued it would create a level playing field and strengthen workforce development, while opponents said it would raise costs, burden contractors without accessible apprenticeship programs, and hurt small businesses. An amendment to delay the effective date failed 4-6, and the bill was then approved 6-4. House Bill 291, the Taxation and Revenue Department’s annual tax cleanup bill, was presented as a package of technical and policy updates, including rounding rules, fee changes, tax credit clarifications, and property tax collection adjustments; it passed 8-2. House Bill 108, a cleanup measure for watershed districts to address tax-levying authority after a change from elected to appointed boards, passed 10-0. House Bill 306, which limits facility fees for preventive care, vaccinations, and telehealth while exempting rural facilities, also passed 10-0 after brief discussion. House Bill 20, allowing Native American applicants to request a voluntary designation on driver’s licenses and ID cards with privacy protections, received supportive testimony from tribal and law enforcement representatives and passed 10-0. Finally, House Bill 309, expanding a special property tax valuation method to include electric power storage facilities, drew support from labor and energy representatives and passed 10-0. The chair closed by thanking staff and members and adjourned the meeting, noting it was likely the committee’s last of the session.