Transcript Highlights:

• Fifty-five to 64% will be a B, 45 to 54% will be a C, and 35 to 44% will be a D.
• Those types of investments need to go back into the classroom.
• Those types of investments need to go back into the classroom.
• If I bring kids from a C to a B, will I be considered an A school, or what?
• Or is that something as part of Plan B of what you're saying? Representative Valdez?

Summary: The Student Academic Success Subcommittee met with a quorum and considered two bills. The first, PCS for HB 1565, would expand permitted purchases under the Personalized Education Program scholarship to include digital devices, clarify statutory terms, and distinguish between parent-directed part-time programs and full-time instructor-led programs. Rep. Hinson questioned oversight and misuse safeguards, while the sponsor said existing statutory and SFO oversight already applies. Public testimony included support from the James Madison Institute, and the bill was reported favorably by a 12-1 vote. The committee then heard PCS for HB 1483, the SCORE Act, which would gradually align Florida’s school grading scale with the familiar A-F scale used for students over a 10-year transition. The sponsor argued that current school grades are inflated and confusing to parents, and said the bill would also expand early support identification from pre-K through 8th grade. Members raised concerns about the impact on public and charter schools, low-income communities, teacher workload, resources, property values, and whether the bill should be paired with funding and professional development. Public testimony included an ESE teacher asking about funding and class size, one opponent from Orange County teachers, and a proponent from Florida Citizens Alliance. After extensive debate, the committee voted 12-5 to report PCS for HB 1483 favorably. Supporters said the bill would improve transparency and accountability for parents and create pressure to raise standards, while opponents warned it could sharply increase lower-rated schools without sufficient resources and could mislead the public about school performance during the transition.

Transcript Highlights:

• any city, or county, or other local... any entity that might be subject to this bill, that if that type
• Having this type of preemption rule would be detrimental to our budget.
• Just as an aside to Chairman Tepper, it addresses disasters and other types.
• It doesn't say Subchapter A and B.
• I think you're never going to have the best case scenario in these types of situations.

Bills: HB5691, SB427, SB2623, SB2858

Keywords: municipal management district, bonds, assessments, property taxes, economic development, eminent domain, special district, SB 427, local government, political subdivision, state loan, state grant, financial reporting, annual financial statement, annual report, county report, municipal finance, water district, municipality, county auditor

Transcript Highlights:

• Also, those are all contract types as well, so that gives the flexibility for my placement types as private
• So the Our Kids B program, 8-9-9.
• They would have an Our Kids B card or documentation that they are on Our Kids B or on Medicaid.
• It's not just limited to Our Kids B.
• It's not just limited to Our Kids B.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So you can imagine, you know, these small electric helicopter-type things that are able to move people
• Most of ours are, I would consider, mostly standard construction types of things.
• To Chris's point, you know, it's not about going from point A to point B, where point B is here on Earth
• , and point B is just to some point in space.
• Point B is in space right now, but it's also going to be moving things around space.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and heard first from Space Florida President and CEO Robert Long, who described the agency’s role as the state’s aerospace finance and business development authority and spaceport authority. He reported a pipeline of about 187 projects, nearly $7 billion in potential private investment, and roughly 8,000 potential jobs, with 161 projects in the fiscal-year pipeline, up about 30% from the prior year. Long said Space Florida is focusing on workforce development through its Space Florida Academy with 23 school districts, and on target markets including advanced air mobility/eVTOL, flight simulation, and satellite manufacturing. Members asked about infrastructure, federal-state coordination, LNG planning, environmental mitigation, workforce, and how the Legislature’s recent $5 million recurring increase is being used; Long said the funds are mainly supporting staffing, contracted services, and IT improvements to handle growth and move projects through faster. The panel then heard from Blue Origin, Leonardo (through LSN Partners), and Lone Star Data Holdings. Blue Origin said its Florida manufacturing and launch operations have grown far beyond initial commitments, with more than $3 billion invested and over 3,000 employees in the state, and emphasized the need for roads, water, wastewater, and other launch-site infrastructure as launch cadence increases. Leonardo highlighted its TH-73A Navy helicopter program in Milton and a new 70,000-square-foot maintenance facility at Whiting Aviation Park, crediting state, local, and federal partners and noting future potential for its AW-609 tiltrotor aircraft. Lone Star Data Holdings described its satellite-based data storage and disaster-recovery business, said Florida was its first customer, and urged the state to use Florida as a pilot project for protecting data and expanding space-based data infrastructure. Members repeatedly focused on what the state should do next, and the panel’s main answer was continued investment in infrastructure and long-term planning. Specific needs mentioned included road widening, traffic signals, fire suppression, water pressure, wastewater capacity, power, transportation links, environmental mitigation, and LNG-related planning at the spaceport. No formal votes or bills were taken up in the meeting, and the session ended after member questions and comments with a motion to rise and adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, you can go in and search by entity type.
• <00:53:34.480> of Market there are three basic types of Market there are three basic types
• And in the case of issuer B, again, it's a triple-A-rated city.
• So the impacts of this increase, based upon type of investment, type of issuer—excuse...
• type of inest type increase based upon type of inest type of<01:05:19.240> issuer<01:05:20.079

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• A is 6.595, and then you have 93 in Category B.
• Brownie point types of influences.
• Offering more of these degree types or having more students participate in those degree types and making
• Yes, they look at those types of things.
• Yes, they look at those types of things.

Summary: The committee first adopted revised JBC rules, which staff said were updated to reflect legislation passed in the 2025 session. It then heard a presentation from DFA Secretary Jim Hudson on the governor’s proposed balanced budget for FY27, with no action taken. Hudson said the budget reflects three priorities: limiting state-government growth, continuing investments in education, and advancing income-tax cuts. He highlighted increases for education funding through EFAs, pay-plan costs for Corrections, DPS, and the Attorney General, higher education productivity funding, drug task forces, a Corrections medical contract, the governor’s 1033 initiative, SNAP error-rate reduction efforts, and an additional $100 million set aside for Medicaid sustainability. Committee members questioned the size of the tax cuts, the balance requirement, public education funding, Medicaid trust-fund levels, EFA funding, and the expected impact of new SNAP cost-sharing rules. The Division of Higher Education then presented its productivity-based funding recommendations. Officials said institutions were 2.61% more productive overall, with funding changes driven by a statutory formula that rewards degree production, underserved populations, and high-demand fields. Members asked about declines at UA Little Rock, the formula’s multipliers, the role of the Arkansas Access Act and a new return-on-investment metric, and how two-year colleges are adjusted for size. The committee also reviewed special items and approved two letters: one authorizing 17 net personnel changes across nine institutions, and another adding special language for North Arkansas College’s entry into the University of Arkansas system. The committee then adopted the Higher Education Coordinating Board’s recommendations for all institutions. A lengthy portion of the meeting focused on the University of Arkansas system, especially Fayetteville’s athletics funding and the broader impact of the House/NIL settlement. Chancellor Charles Robinson and system officials explained that the board had waived a longstanding campus transfer and directed the university to provide an additional $6 million to athletics, with some costs likely to be passed through to students but partially offset by existing budget growth. Members debated whether the university should prioritize academics or athletics, how the transfer originated, and whether the athletic changes would affect affordability. The committee also discussed the 1890 extension program at UAPB and the Division of Agriculture’s land-grant funding. UAPB officials said the state match is intended to be one-to-one, that the current recommendation aligns appropriation with actual spending, and that a $2 million set-aside remains available if needed. The Division of Agriculture later clarified that its Smith-Lever extension and Hatch research funds are part of the UA system’s separate budget and that the state matched about $6.2 million in federal extension funding last year. The committee then moved to the Department of Corrections. It approved G1, transferring 51 positions to the secretary’s office to activate a recidivism program, with an estimated cost of about $4 million. Staff then began walking through the department’s FY27 budget, noting an increase of about $8 million for administration and shared services, including a $170,000 sex-offender assessment appropriation moved under Act 723 of 2025 and roughly $6 million more for medical contracts. Questions on the Corrections budget had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• B if I could just for a few. B if I could just for a few.
• B adopted.
• >> No B using previous role. No objection. >> No B using previous role.
• apply to even misdemeanor type actions. apply to even misdemeanor type actions.
• B. >> Is that BR adopted?

Keywords: 920, all

Summary: The Alabama Senate convened with prayer, the pledge, and a roll call establishing a quorum. Senators then adopted the prior day’s journal and excused absent members. A lengthy point of personal privilege followed, in which Senator Smith criticized the prior day’s handling of the special order calendar and argued that minority-party senators were denied the chance to speak, while Senator Coleman said Senate Bill 318 had been removed from the calendar and tied that to Child Abuse Prevention Month; she also noted Senate Bill 43, which would provide civil recourse for child sex assault survivors, had not advanced. The presiding officer also recognized guests in the gallery, including staff from the Alabama Department of Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention and members of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. The Senate then received multiple committee reports, largely on a unanimous or near-unanimous basis. Finance and Taxation Education reported favorably on House Bills 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 565, 517, and 98, and Senate Bill 380, with some substitutes or amendments; Finance and Taxation General Fund reported Senate Bill 378 favorably; County and Municipal Government reported House Bills 568, 499, and 433; Education Policy reported House Bills 8 and 380; Banking and Insurance reported House Bill 545; Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development reported House Bill 586 with two nays; Healthcare reported House Bills 533 and 605; Tourism and Marketing reported House Bills 513 and 626 and Senate Bill 357; and local legislation committees reported several Mobile County and Madison County bills, including Senate Bill 379 relating to Madison County and various House bills, all advancing to the next legislative day. In motions and resolutions, the Senate agreed to allow committee reports to be received at any time during the day. Several resolutions were introduced and referred to the Rules Committee, including Senate Joint Resolution 100 honoring Presley Skelton, SJR 101 commending Auburn University’s School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture, SJR 102 establishing the Alabama Forest Products Retention and Pulp and Paper Mill Stability Study Commission, SJR 103 mourning Norman Wendell Arnold, and SJR 104 designating Alabama as the river state. The chamber also suspended the rules to take up Senate Joint Resolution 105, commending Lieutenant Governor Will Ainsworth for his service; the resolution included a lengthy recitation of his background and accomplishments and was read for immediate consideration with all senators added as sponsors.

Transcript Highlights:

• to do and get this committee going, because there we are not going to have this resolved with the type
• Or you could reference the specific section within this rule, like 501-B.
• B. B. B.
• Okay, the statutory reference to the rule would be ED 501.02, paragraph B.
• parentheses B. parentheses B.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The conference committee first discussed HB 1099, which creates a committee to study private business providing special education services and local school district reimbursement. Members explained that the issue is broader than special education alone, involving residential placements, foster care, court-ordered placements, and questions about which entity pays for education and care costs when students are placed in residential facilities. The House proposed an amendment to expand the study to include students placed in residential facilities by school districts as well as those placed through episodes of treatment or court order, and members agreed the existing commission would not resolve the issue before its July 1, 2026 expiration. Representative Coker raised concern about the phrase “but not limited to,” but members said the broader language was needed to capture placements beyond the existing statutory categories. The committee then agreed to accede to the Senate version of HB 1099 with a committee amendment, and the House voted unanimously to adopt amendment 2026-1845H. The bill was placed on the consent calendar, and the meeting adjourned. The transcript also includes a separate conference committee discussion on HB 1807, concerning mandatory reporting to voters. The main dispute was how to present administrator compensation: the House favored total administrative cost, while the Senate initially preferred average administrator salary. Members debated whether voters would be better informed by totals or averages, and whether the bill should define “administrator” more clearly by reference to DOE rules. The committee reached a tentative compromise to add both an average administrator salary graph and a total administrator cost graph, define administrators by reference to ED 501.02(B), scale the graph more precisely, and list the top 10 highest-paid administrators plus any employee earning over $100,000. Both chambers then gave unanimous support to the revised approach, with the understanding that the draft would be finalized and signed later.

Transcript Highlights:

• Schedule B oversight requires pits to have impenetrable... impenetrable lining of pits, and financial
• Schedule A and Schedule B. It shows you that they're currently under Schedule A.
• Typically, when you do utilize these types of things, it is cheaper in the long run.
• Plus, there are other requirements outside of B that also allow for suspensions.
• That's Exhibit B, and then... She said, "We're sorry you're an NPRI, and we don't do that."

Bills: HB3619, HB3652, HB4572, HB4891, HB4941, HB5103, HB5105, HB5106, HB5224, HB5600

Keywords: surface estate, well plugging, Railroad Commission, landowner rights, liability, strategic reserve, gas supply, petroleum products, disaster response, Railroad Commission of Texas, energy security, emergency planning, oil and gas waste, environmental regulation, waste management, mining pits, groundwater monitoring, regulation, commercial disposal facilities, environmental standards

Transcript Highlights:

• What do you mean by Tier B?
• It was just Tier B.
• /c><00:21:14.400> people to um make the tier B people to um make the tier B people whole<00:21
• /c><00:23:25.200> I so we're just trying to get tier B I so we're just trying to get tier B I
• <01:34:36.480> of to see what type of to see what type of work9<01:34:38.520> that's

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2 retirement provisions, focusing on Group Two/Tier B changes in pages 25-39. Jan Goodwin of the New Hampshire Retirement System and deputy chief counsel Mark Kavanaugh explained that the 2025 bill is largely similar to prior versions, but it restores certain pre-2011 benefit rules for Tier B members, including changes to average final compensation and earnable compensation, and it also addresses the annuity multiplier for years of service. Members discussed the tier structure, with Tier A referring to vested members, Tier B to those hired before 11/1/12 who were not vested, and Tier C to later hires. Several members expressed concern that the bill’s purpose was to restore Tier B benefits, not to change Tier A rules or create broader changes affecting newer hires. The retirement system flagged two likely drafting problems. First, it said a provision appears to omit a special-duty/earnable-compensation limitation in the Group Two section, which they believed was a scrivener’s error caused by moving language out of the Group One definition without adding it back for Group Two. Second, they noted the bill’s multiplier language overlaps with changes already enacted in HB 1647, which increased the multiplier for service beyond 15 years for Group Two and carried an estimated $26 million cost. The committee discussed that HB 1647 was originally broader in the House, but the Senate narrowed it to Tier B only. The actuary’s comparison of the 2023 and 2025 HB 2 versions showed the bills are close, but the 2025 version differs in funding and timing. Staff said the 2025 bill appropriates $2.5 million more per year for 10 years, and that, together with updated actuarial assumptions and a larger share of the affected tier having already retired or otherwise left service, results in a larger reduction in unfunded liability than the 2023 bill: about $98.2 million versus $68.5 million. Employer contribution impacts were described as small overall, though the 2025 bill was said to be somewhat more favorable than the 2023 version. Members also questioned why House Bill 1 only funds $5 million in the first year, and staff said that was tied to the governor’s revenue estimate and that the full funding does not begin immediately. No votes were taken in the portion provided; the committee mainly received testimony, asked clarifying questions, and noted that some issues would be addressed in the fiscal note worksheet.

Transcript Highlights:

• James B. Eldridge. No. Ryan C. Fatman. Thank you. James B. Eldridge: No. Ryan C. Fattman: Yes.
• James B. Eldridge. Thank you. Andrea Edwards. James B. Eldridge? No. Ryan C. Fattman? Yes.
• Joan B. Lovely, no. Paul W. Mark, no. Joan B. Lovely, no. Paul W. Mark, no. Liz Miranda, no.
• Joan B. Lovely. Paul W. Mark, Jason M. Lewis. Joan B. Lovely. Paul W. Mark. Ms. Miranda. Mark C.
• Joan B. Lovely. Yes. Paul W. Mark. Yes. Michael O. Moore. Yes.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate resumed debate on Senate No. 2696, An Act Regarding Free Expression, a bill addressing challenges to books and other library materials in school and public libraries. Senators supporting the bill argued it protects free expression and gives students, parents, guardians, and others a court path to challenge removals, while opponents raised concerns about parental rights, school control, and the scope and timing of the review process. Several speakers also emphasized the broader context of book bans and the impact on authors, librarians, and students. A number of amendments were considered. Amendment 4, offered by Senator Creem, was adopted and extended standing to authors and creators to challenge removals of their works, including in municipal libraries. Amendment 5, by Senator DiDomenico, was adopted and limited who may initiate challenges to those connected to the school community. Amendment 6, by Senator Comerford, was adopted to require that challenged materials be considered in their entirety. Amendment 8, by Senator Tarr, proposing parental notification of challenges, was rejected after a roll call. Subsequent Tarr amendments on parental opt-out, reporting, public process, and written policy were also rejected, while Amendment 19, requiring written reasons when librarians remove outdated or successor materials, was rejected as well. Amendment 7, a Ways and Means amendment, was adopted. The Senate then ordered the bill to a third reading and passed it to be engrossed by a roll call vote of 35 in favor and 3 against. The chamber also adopted an order to meet again the following Monday at 11:00 a.m., and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• They currently evaluate convictions and use similar types of convictions when looking to exclude people
• convictions<00:04:53.240> when<00:04:53.400> we're<00:04:53.720> looking types
• of convictions when we're looking types of convictions when we're looking to<00:04:54.120> exclude
• a two-month to five-year period, that could be considered a pattern, and that would also be a class B
• felony um at the bottom of be a class B felony um at the bottom of my<00:36:19.400> testimony<

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• think this is a house buil two type think this is a house buil two type thing<00:21:56.440> right
• The Tier B changes, the Tier B restoration, is not a new benefit.
• tier B but but my understanding is that tier B but but my understanding is that would<03:40:27.080>
• I am a member of Tier B.
• But that's a change not just for Tier B, but also for Tier A? No—Tier B, but also for Tier A? Yes.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 187, which would allow parents or guardians to seek restraining orders on behalf of a minor child even when the alleged perpetrator is not a family or household member. Tracy Sirles testified that the bill was prompted by her family’s experience after being told by state police to seek a restraining order, only to learn the current law did not allow it because the offender was the child’s best friend’s father. Members agreed the change was straightforward, noted the fiscal note reflected only a small indeterminate cost to the judicial branch, and moved House Bill 187 ought to pass; the motion was approved unanimously. The committee then discussed House Bill 66, a Right-to-Know bill that removes “citizen” language in favor of “person” in some provisions and allows certain New Hampshire-connected requesters to seek records electronically if the records already exist in that format. Members reviewed concerns about defining “member of the media,” the scope of electronic requests, and a sentence stating appeals would have no filing fee or search charge. After debate, the committee voted to amend the bill by removing that fee-waiver sentence, then recommended House Bill 66 ought to pass as amended. The vote was 6-3. Next, the committee heard from the Environment and Agriculture chair about several solid-waste-related bills being folded into trailer bill language, including House Bill 215 and House Bill 171, with discussion of a possible three-year landfill moratorium and the need to address DEES staffing and funding concerns. DEES later clarified that the revised approach would not require new positions or create a fiscal impact because the new solid waste commission would be self-funded through filing fees. The committee voted unanimously to retain House Bill 215. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 566, which requires landfill permit applications to include a detailed leachate management plan and more information about disposal contracts. The sponsor said the bill was developed with DEES to address leachate problems and improve safety oversight. DEES testified that the bill largely reflects current practice and would have no specific fiscal impact, with existing staff able to absorb any review workload. The committee moved House Bill 566 ought to pass, and the motion was approved unanimously. The committee also briefly discussed House Bill 624, a grant program for local river management advisory committees, but no vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• G-o-t-l-i-e-b? I think it's G-o-t-l-i-e-b. L-I-E-B. Thank you. Thank you.
• And these types of providers started to come out.
• Some attorneys also get kickbacks from this type of work. Therapy.
• Strike subsections B and C.
• B and C are excluded, would you all be in favor of the bill?

Bills: HB168, HB 1044, HB1534, HB1914, HB2240, HB2530, HB3284, HB3395, HB3515, HB3783, HB4034, HB4213, HB168

Keywords: marriage age, minors, family law, void marriage, rights of minors, Texas marriage law, marriage ceremony, authorized officiants, family code, judges, religious leaders, parent-child relationship, Department of Family and Protective Services, legal rights, notice requirements, HB 1914, Texas Family Code, Chapter 156, conservatorship, custody

Transcript Highlights:

• Next one would be item B. Mr. Chairman?
• Right now, item B reads the identification of the types of cases to be included.
• underneath that subdivision B if the task force would like as well, if there were other types of proceedings
• We talked about including, you know, or leaving under subparagraph B, identification of the types of
• It also doesn't define what type of costs can be associated with this.

Summary: The Child Custody Review Task Force met to approve prior minutes and then worked through draft legislation related to a possible family court study committee. The group discussed the proposed 15-member committee’s makeup in detail, including whether to add parent representation, judges, family law section members, child support, clerks of court, domestic violence advocates, and other stakeholders. The task force ultimately agreed to keep the committee at 15 members, reduce the legislative membership from eight to six, add two judges from different districts, add two family law section members with rural and urban representation, include one parent subject to a custody order, and replace the mental health professional with a clerk of court representative appointed through the trial court administrator’s office. The draft was also revised to keep domestic violence advocacy representation and to clarify that the study could consider juvenile court issues as part of the family court umbrella. The committee voted to approve the revised draft and recommend it to Legislative Management, with one recorded “no” vote from Judge Hovey after the meeting resumed. The task force then turned to a second draft dealing with requiring participation in a family transition program, which was renamed in discussion to a parenting education course. Members debated whether the bill should simply refer to an existing program like Parents Forever or instead specify broader education about the court process, parental rights, co-parenting, and related issues. Some members supported the requirement as a way to reduce conflict and improve understanding of the system, while others raised concerns about vague language, cost to parents, lack of exemptions, and whether the bill was too open-ended or potentially duplicative of other legislation. The discussion became lengthy and unresolved, with the drafter noting that more specific direction would be needed to revise the bill. The transcript cuts off before a final vote or action on this second draft is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Joan B. Lovely. Yes. Paul W. Mark. Joan B. Lovely. Yes. Paul W. Mark. Liz Miranda. Yes. Mark C.
• Joan B. Lovely for the committee.
• Joan B. Lovely for the committee.
• Joan B. Lovely for the committee.
• Joan B. Lovely for the committee.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate considered a campaign finance and ballot question transparency bill, taking up a series of amendments. Several amendments offered by Senator Tarr were rejected, including proposals on safety-based redactions, standardized valuation/liability reporting, higher contribution limits, municipal ballot question reporting, tax-exempt entities in ballot campaigns, and post-election audits for all statewide elections. Amendments by Senators Rausch and DiDomenico were adopted, including late contribution reporting and retroactive reporting with an emergency preamble. Senator Feingold’s amendment to prohibit pay-per-signature arrangements for petition gathering was also adopted after a roll call vote. The bill, Senate No. 2898, An Act improving campaign finance reporting by state ballot question committees, was then passed to be engrossed by a 38-0 vote. The Senate next took up Senate No. 2903, An Act honoring Blue Star families, which would provide specialty license plates at no charge to the parent, child, or spouse of a law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty. Senators spoke in support, emphasizing the sacrifice of officers and their families, including the recent funeral of Officer Stephen LaPorteur. The bill was ordered to a third reading and then passed to be engrossed by a 38-0 vote. The chamber also approved several committee extension orders. These extended deadlines for the Committees on Aging and Independence, Education, Public Service, and Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, with members noting the limited number of bills and the need for additional time to complete review, cost analysis, or respond to commission reports. The Senate then adopted an order to meet again the following Tuesday at 11 a.m., dispensed with printing a calendar, and adjourned in memory of Stuart H. Altman.

Transcript Highlights:

• It might be the type of finding.
• property types that are exempted.
• property types that are exempted.
• property types that are exempted.
• weight than the other types of criteria? weight than the other types of criteria?

Bills: HB2611, HB2102, HB1710, HB1868, HB1920, HB1812, HB1733, HB1715, HB1723, HB1724, HB1727, HB1711

Keywords: HB2611, Hawaii antitrust, rental housing, rent price-fixing, algorithmic pricing, algorithmic rent-setting, property management software, pricing algorithms, rent coordination, price-fixing, collusion, cartel, multifamily housing, landlord software, occupancy levels, lease terms, Attorney General, public education program, consumer protection, housing affordability

Summary: The committee first took up HB 2611, which would prohibit algorithmic price-setting in Hawaii’s rental market, require public education by the Attorney General, and establish fines and penalties. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill, saying its language was too unclear and could expose landlords and agents to criminal and civil liability for ordinary rent-setting practices based on public information or assistance from property professionals. Members asked about antitrust standards, tacit agreement, and whether using county-published affordable-rent schedules would be unlawful; the AG said that would not be unlawful if based on public information and without collusion. Testimony was mixed, with the chair noting support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Realtors with comments, 50501 Hawaii and General Strike Hawaii, Haloha Project, 13 individuals, and one opponent. The committee then heard HB 2102, which clarifies that residential projects involving ground disturbance in high-risk areas remain subject to state historic preservation review and removes an exemption for lands presumed nominally sensitive. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and the Department of Planning and Permitting supported the measure, saying it would improve clarity and ensure review focuses on projects most likely to affect historic properties or iwi kupuna, while also urging language refinements to better define sensitive sandy-soil areas and balance preservation with housing timelines. NAP Hawaii opposed the bill, arguing it would undo progress made last session and that the current process already includes protections for inadvertent discoveries and efficiency for lower-risk areas. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported HB 2102, explaining it was responding to beneficiary complaints about late-added language in last year’s law and saying the nominally sensitive-area language should be removed because it was adopted without sufficient stakeholder input and could be harmful to iwi kupuna protections. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and several individuals also supported the bill. Committee discussion focused on how “nominally sensitive” areas are determined, whether project proponents could self-certify areas as exempt, and how high-density residential projects should be treated; SHPD said it uses survey and monitoring data to map sensitivity, that highly sensitive areas like Kīauea are not nominally sensitive, and that some high-density projects should remain exempt if they do not involve new ground disturbance. The hearing included no final vote in the portion provided, but the chair noted 48 individuals in support and continued questioning on the bill’s definitions and implementation.

Transcript Highlights:

• You have three types of students.
• <01:43:24.120> errors, errors, it's reoccurring type errors, errors, it's reoccurring type
• <01:59:46.000> and also took put down the school types and also took put down the school types
• and program<01:59:46.960> types program types program types for<01:59:48.680> all<01:59
• The first category B, yes. >> Yeah.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission on the costing of special education met to review several documents and updates, including draft materials on residential placements, an LBA dispute resolution report, prior minutes, rate-setting rules, and a letter involving Senator Hassan. The minutes from March 16 were approved by motion, second, and one abstention. Members also received an update that the LBA special education performance audit is still pending; the report is expected to be very large, NHED and the Board of Education must review and comment before release, and it likely will not be available until late summer or early fall. The separate EFA audit was also noted as still unreleased, and members said they may return later to issues involving EFA costing and differentiated aid. A major focus was HB 1099, which would create a committee to study the cost and liability of providing educational services to students placed in residential facilities. The chair explained that the House version had passed unanimously and the bill was headed to a committee of conference. Members discussed a proposed amendment to add the phrase “including but not limited to” so the study would cover not only court-ordered or treatment-related placements but also other residential placements, including those tied to school district decisions. Some members said this was a substantial expansion, while others said it would simply give the committee broader latitude. Jason Stock of the Winnisquam Regional School Board described how the issue arose during budget work at Winnisquam, where the district was trying to determine who should pay for educational services for students living at Spaulding Youth Center in Northfield. He said the district had 10 students attending Winnisquam, including three foster students and seven students connected to Spaulding, and that Spaulding-specific invoicing for 2024-2025 totaled $141,417.05 for eight students. Members also discussed rising private placement tuition costs and the difficulty of determining residency and fiscal responsibility for students placed in residential settings. Department counsel explained that under RSA 193:27 and 193:28, children placed in a home for children may attend the local district school, and that special education cost responsibility depends on whether the student is identified as disabled and on the nature of the placement. Spaulding representatives had not yet presented by the end of the excerpt, and the committee was still working through the residency and funding questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• What do you mean by Tier B?
• It was just Tier B.
• /c><00:21:14.400> people to um make the tier B people to um make the tier B people whole<00:21
• /c><00:23:25.200> I so we're just trying to get tier B I so we're just trying to get tier B I
• <01:34:36.480> of to see what type of to see what type of work9<01:34:38.520> that's

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2 provisions affecting the New Hampshire Retirement System, focusing on Group 2/Tier B retirement changes in pages 25 through 39 of the bill. NHRS Executive Director Jan Goodwin and deputy chief counsel Mark Kavanaugh explained that the 2025 bill is largely similar to prior versions and to HB 727, with the main difference being that the 2025 version does not include the earlier increase in the maximum benefit. They also said the fiscal note for HB 2 is based on earlier actuarial work and that an updated valuation was expected later in the week. A major topic was whether the bill accidentally removed an anti-spiking or special-duty compensation limit. NHRS said the omission appears to be a scrivener’s error caused by moving language between Group 1 and Group 2 definitions, and they planned to flag it in the fiscal note. Members also reviewed the bill’s intent to restore Tier B members to pre-2011 benefit rules, including changes to earnable compensation, average final compensation, and the comp-over-base rule. Some members questioned whether restoring those older rules was appropriate, arguing the 2011 changes were meant to curb pension spiking and that undoing them could be problematic. The committee also discussed the bill’s cost and funding assumptions. NHRS said the 2025 bill would reduce unfunded actuarial liability by about $98.2 million and would have a more favorable effect than the 2023 version, while employer contribution impacts would remain relatively small. Members noted the bill assumes annual appropriations of $27.5 million for 10 years, but House Bill 1 currently provides only $5 million in the first year, and NHRS had not yet analyzed the effect of that shortfall. No votes were taken in the portion provided; the discussion was informational and focused on clarifying the bill’s language, intent, and fiscal impact.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd like to pass the B. I'd like to pass the B. That is questions adoption of the B.
• B, dollars. B, dollars.
• Speaker, ask for the B. B. B.
• Speaker asked for the B that is questions adoption of the B that is questions adoption of the B that
• Adoption of the B. That's question. Adoption of the B. That's question. Adoption of the B.

Bills: HB 10, HB 12, HB 147, HB 1522, HB 422, HB 675, HB 204, HB 748, HB 912

Keywords: regulatory reform, government efficiency, administrative law, rulemaking, agency deference, judicial review, de novo review, Texas Government Code, Administrative Procedure Act, state agencies, plain language, regulatory burden, regulatory reduction, cost-benefit analysis, fiscal note, public benefits and costs, contested case, rule challenge, Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office, advisory panel