Transcript Highlights:

• Tackett, your audio is in the process of connecting.
• Tackett, your audio is in the process of connecting.
• I mean, should I mention that this process is rushed?
• Let's be clear, this is not a routine redistricting process.
• So this process feels rushed, closed, and unfair.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• adding greater scrutiny to that process adding greater scrutiny to that process so<00:26:49.279>
• <00:41:30.040> of strictly linked to the process of strictly linked to the process of granting
• Process on the front end will drive improvement, and if we layer more process for legislators before
• Improvement lead cleor and process is Improvement lead cleor and process is what<00:56:40.000> this
• of violations and Grant processes of violations and Grant processes sections<01:32:28.520> 6-

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met on February 11 and began with introductions from members and staff, who shared brief personal and district facts. Chair Jim Nash then outlined the committee’s goals for the session, emphasizing bipartisan cooperation, the need to address a looming structural deficit, and the committee’s role in moving legislation forward. The committee also reviewed its rules for the year. The main item was House File 3, authored by Chair Nash and referred to Ways and Means. The bill would require the Office of the Legislative Auditor to produce an annual report tracking whether agencies have implemented prior audit and evaluation recommendations, with the goal of improving internal controls, transparency, and accountability and helping legislators make funding decisions. Nash described the bill as a preventative measure to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, and said it was modeled in part on practices used in Colorado. Legislative Auditor Judy Randall testified that the office already produces similar update reports but lacks resources to independently verify many agency responses; she said the bill would provide a framework for more regular reporting and discussion, not a “shame tool.” Ranna Lee of Americans for Prosperity testified in support, saying the bill would increase accountability and transparency for how public agencies manage taxpayer resources. A letter from the Minnesota Council on Nonprofits was also noted in support. Representative Clardy offered the A7 amendment to add an appropriation matching the fiscal note; Nash accepted it, saying savings could be found later in the process. The committee approved the A7 amendment by voice vote. During discussion, Representative Quam supported the bill’s focus on accountability, and Representative Freiberg questioned the Legislative Auditor about the office’s expertise on a specific ambulance-services recommendation in the report. Randall responded that the office’s staff are policy research generalists who use standards, best practices, interviews, surveys, and site visits to develop recommendations, and that the goal is to prompt further discussion rather than require blind acceptance. The transcript ends during that exchange, with no final committee vote on House File 3 shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• That whole process. So in delays, right? That whole process.
• recruitment process. recruitment process.
• accelerated uh recruitment process? accelerated uh recruitment process?
• process? process?
• know the timing of these processes? know the timing of these processes?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Labor held an informational briefing on August 22, 2025, to receive an update from DEH on statewide recruitment efforts aimed at reducing vacancies across state departments. Director Hashimoto, joined by DEH staff, presented on two hiring initiatives: Wikiwiki Hire and Operation Hire Hawaii. The committee focused on how each program works, how quickly applications are screened and referred, and how the programs differ from standard recruitment procedures. For Wikiwiki Hire, DEH described it as an accelerated recruitment pathway used mainly for classes with multiple vacancies. DEH screens applications every two weeks, then sends qualified applicants a list of participating departments and recruiter contact information so applicants and departments can connect directly. Committee members asked about effectiveness data, timelines, and whether the process aligns with the merit principle. DEH said the program is intended to speed hiring, that departments are not required to interview every person on a list, and that applicants can be hired as vacancies are filled on a first-come, first-served basis so long as all qualified applicants have the same opportunity. DEH also said it could provide data later and that it is working through a backlog of screenings. The committee then discussed Operation Hire Hawaii, an executive-order-based hiring effort launched in February to expedite hiring, including for displaced federal workers but open to all applicants. DEH reported more than 6,000 applications, 127 recruitments, 81 closed recruitments, and 142 hires, with a goal of conditional offers within two weeks. DEH said it turns applications around daily, while departments do the initial screening, interviews, and hiring decisions, with DEH completing final qualification screening and suitability checks at the end. Members asked about the program’s duration, its low conversion rate, and what happens to applicants who are not hired; DEH said it can refer qualified applicants to other vacancies and that the pilot was originally intended to run about a year, with possible extension if departments want it to continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:20:42.640> was<00:20:42.799> the procurement process was the procurement process
• <00:41:59.760> so through their approval process so through their approval process so there's
• He said it is a whole different process and you can't compare processes for Title programs to processes
• <01:05:54.680> so<01:05:55.160> who<01:05:55.359> does process so who does process
• This was actually part of the NOO process.

Keywords: This meeting will take place upon adjournment of both chambers today. There is not an exact time, there for the live stream has been created with a place holder time of 4:00 PM est., 958, all

Summary: Chairman Hart called the meeting to order, confirmed a quorum, welcomed Representative Rachel Roarx, and the committee approved the February 11 minutes. The committee then moved through its agenda of PSC and related contract items, including a motion to consider the reviewed contracts without objection. One Department of Highways item was deferred when the virtual representatives were not yet available. The committee first took up Kentucky Housing Corporation contracts. Members questioned outside legal services for foreclosures and bankruptcies, why the work was not handled entirely in-house, and how much of the workload and cost it represented. Witnesses said the agency’s need was largely geographic rather than a lack of expertise, that less than 1% of the loan portfolio is referred out for foreclosures, and that many fees are reimbursable through FHA. Both Kentucky Housing Corporation items were approved. The committee then considered a Department for Community Based Services contract tied to a protest and a temporary renewal with PCG. Witnesses said the contract increase was needed to bridge the gap while the protest and RFP process were unresolved, and that the initial vendor received no funds. The committee approved the item, with Senator Douglas explaining his vote as a preference for straightforward answers. The committee also heard a Northern Kentucky University contract for a Workday ERP replacement, including implementation consulting and separate license fees. University officials explained the move from SAP to Workday, the complexity of the systems, and the need for a consulting partner; they said the total effort would span 10 years and that the contract was priced below comparable institutions. After extensive questioning about cost, budget, and value, the vote ended 4-4 and the chair noted the contract would move forward through the Finance Committee if no disapproval motion was made. Finally, the Office of Inspector General presented a contract for culture change training in nursing facilities funded by civil monetary penalties; witnesses said the goal was to improve staff satisfaction, communication, and resident outcomes, and that the CMP fund balance was about $38 million. Discussion also covered survey backlogs and CMS restrictions on the funds, with the item still under review as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• That review panel process, or the dual panel review process, included dozens and dozens of some of the
• That review panel process or the dual panel review process included dozens and dozens of some of the
• Sir, our experts are looking at that process.
• Through y'all's processes to go forward.
• I think we've got processes in place to safeguard Processes are there for a reason.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The parents are very much frustrated in this process.
• You know, it's a very hard process.
• I think we're getting the evaluation processes and the IEP processes sort of jumbled up; they're two
• My son was three when we went through this process, and it is a very difficult process to get through
• You know, this bill, I think, just streamlines the process.

Transcript Highlights:

• , just to give us time to consider the submissions, make our recommendations, and get it into the process
• <00:02:31.160> for<00:02:31.360> the<00:02:31.560> capital into the process
• for the capital into the process for the capital projects<00:02:33.280> uh<00:02:33.440> part
• Do you have a process that occurs earlier?
• Do you have a process that occurs earlier?

Keywords: Meeting start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:12 Discussion on 2025 Regular Session Proposals 00:01:00 Discussion for Future Meetings 00:18:25, 958, all

Summary: The Investments in IT Improvements and Modernization Projects Oversight Board met for its first meeting, approved the minutes from November 13, 2024, and then discussed BR 355, a bill draft intended to revise and clarify the board’s governing statute based on its first year of experience. The draft would rename the body as the Information Technology Oversight Committee, add or refine definitions for cybersecurity projects/systems and legacy projects/systems, move the annual submission deadline earlier, and require a six-year outline and funding-source information for transition planning. Members and staff said the bill was largely a codification of current practice, with no major controversy. State Budget Director John Hicks and CIO Jim Baird offered technical comments and suggested several drafting changes: using “system” instead of “project” for legacy and cybersecurity references, adjusting the first reporting deadline to give agencies more time if the bill becomes law in March, and clarifying that the statute should ask agencies for estimated expenditures and funding sources rather than implying an electronic link to the budget request. They also suggested that the linkage to the budget process could be handled through budget instructions rather than statute. Members discussed whether the six-year outline should be biennial and agreed that the April timing fit the capital planning process. After the discussion, the board agreed in principle to revise the draft along those lines, including changing the terminology, making the six-year outline biennial, and refining the budget-related language. The board also discussed future meeting dates and agreed to meet on Fridays upon adjournment, with February and March meetings to be scheduled later. The meeting ended with a motion and second to adjourn, which passed.

Transcript Highlights:

• process, but amplifies its problems. process, but amplifies its problems.
• <01:45:53.520> Um due process. Um due process.
• This process, this principle of due process in our U.S.
• This process, this principle of due process in our U.S.
• Where is their due process?

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The Senate opened with the pledge, approved the January 30, 2026 journal, and then proceeded out of order for several personal privileges and resolutions. Members welcomed delegates from Poland and noted the Jewish holiday of Tu Bishvat. The chamber then took up Senate Joint Resolution 001, which approves the water project revolving fund eligibility list administered by the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. Sponsors explained that the resolution only establishes project eligibility and does not itself set funding amounts. The resolution passed 32-0, and the current roll call was added as co-sponsors. The Senate next considered Senate Joint Resolution 006, a lengthy measure affirming civil rights and dignity for immigrant Coloradans and calling for transparent, accountable federal immigration enforcement. The resolution urged an end to anonymous enforcement tactics, protection of access to schools, health care, courthouses, and other public spaces, and broader federal immigration reform. Senator Weissman moved a technical amendment correcting a reference from ICE to CBP in one example; the amendment was adopted 32-0. Debate featured personal stories from supporters about immigrant family histories and service, while the Minority Leader said he appreciated the sponsors’ engagement but could not support the resolution as drafted, though he agreed with much of its intent and called for more constructive dialogue. The resolution passed 20-12, and several senators were added as co-sponsors. After the resolutions, the Senate moved into the Committee of the Whole for second reading of bills on the consent calendar. Senate Bill 10, concerning clarification of definitions used in the taxation of agricultural property, was adopted on second reading and reported out favorably. The chamber then began consideration of Senate Bill 4, concerning who may petition a court for an extreme risk protection order, with the sponsor noting two technical amendments had been added to improve the language. The committee report on that bill was adopted, and the bill was moved forward on second reading.

Transcript Highlights:

• . process. process.
• competitive process. competitive process.
• >> The bidding process?
• competitive bidding process. competitive bidding process.
• >> The bidding process? >> The bidding process?

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker, kind gentleman, there's a procurement process and a bid process in all of that, and so, you
• Maybe they found some artifacts that will slow the process down.
• I think due process really matters.
• I think that it doesn't allow enough due process.
• But was I overlooked, or was that just the process, Mr. Speaker?

Bills: HB111, HB61, HB43, HB156, HB70, SB3, HB103, HB109, HB128, HB247, HJM2, HJM3, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50

Keywords: water law, state engineer, civil penalty, compliance order, water rights, overdiversion, illegal diversion, groundwater storage and recovery, well license, permit violation, water enforcement, New Mexico water code, irrigation district, conservancy district, water diversion, unauthorized water sales, measuring device, district court appeal, water resources, water compliance

Transcript Highlights:

• They've got to go through that regular process.
• And so we just want to follow the process.
• Oversight of the process is twofold.
• So to answer the question about public process, I believe...
• We develop this process, the same questions came through.

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• legislative process. legislative process.
• in that process.
• <00:56:05.680> So process of reviewing those now. So process of reviewing those now.
• Uh, we took more time building the grant process, the grant review process, the grant administration
• process than we'll spend.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• How does this bill, they're already regulated in all of these processes.
• this bill, These processes are already regulated by the DTSC and the Air District.
• How does this bill, they're already regulated in all of these processes.
• whether it's being processed according to the bill's strictures.
• And there's different materials that are part of the process that have to be handled differently.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Did human review process?
• One is, you know, by building in not pilot process to your solicitation process, right?
• You intake process.
• What does that process look like?
• and the governance process to allow for it.

Transcript Highlights:

• And how you think that you can improve that process in your department?
• I wanted to just talk about the concept of time is money in this process.
• Somebody's in charge when an interagency process fails or derails or delays.
• As your team executes the program, can you assure us that the review process...
• That's the actual work part of the process.

Keywords: surface transportation, infrastructure reauthorization, bipartisan collaboration, safety, federal programs, funding challenges, bureaucracy, transportation needs, critical projects, public testimony

Summary: The committee meeting focused on the development of the next surface transportation reauthorization bill. Discussions centered around key principles aimed at improving the safety and reliability of the transportation network, reforming federal programs for efficiency, and addressing the diverse transportation needs across various states. Members emphasized the importance of bipartisan collaboration to streamline processes, eliminate bureaucratic delays, and ensure timely funding for critical infrastructure projects. There were also notable conversations about specific projects and funding challenges, reflecting the urgency for action and commitment to modernizing America's infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• Process. And with that, Mr.
• Are we ever done in a plan or in this process. Let us know.
• Our team is developing that process right now.
• Process. Is there a plan to do that? Because I know we're like six years late in that process.
• I want to thank everybody involved in the process.

Transcript Highlights:

• enforcement and inspection processes enforcement and inspection processes here<00:21:47.480>
• <00:35:30.480> um process for them but the processes um process for them but the processes
• of dhs's background studies processes of dhs's background studies processes that<00:57:39.000>
• Is there an internal process?
• <01:26:06.800> so is a very resource intense process so is a very resource intense process

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The statutory truth-in-millage process requires that all taxing authorities follow a consistent process
• Yes, the FEMA reimbursement process is an extensive process.
• That's a very formal process.
• That's a very formal process.
• That's a very formal process.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes heard first from city representatives through the Florida League of Cities, who argued that property taxes are a stable local revenue source that funds core services such as police, fire, parks, public works, and stormwater work. Casey Cook emphasized that cities are optional governments with widely different tax bases and service levels, that exemptions shift the burden to fewer taxpayers, and that transparency already exists through TRIM notices, public budgets, and local hearings. Sarah Campbell of Fernandina Beach, T. Michael Stavris of Winter Haven, and Stephen O’Kee of Port St. Lucie described their budget processes, the share of general-fund revenue coming from property taxes, reserve policies, debt and capital planning, and the impact of inflation, minimum wage increases, and personnel costs. They all said local governments need predictable revenue and that any property tax changes would require careful consideration of replacement funding or service reductions. Members questioned the city panel about whether homebuyers are clearly informed about city versus county taxes and services, the role of HOAs, how many lobbyists cities employ, reserve levels, average salaries, and whether utility revenues are used only for utility purposes. The panel said TRIM notices, realtor listings, and city websites provide tax information; HOAs generally do not provide emergency services; lobbyists help local governments track Tallahassee legislation; reserves vary by city and fund; and utility revenues are generally restricted, though some cities use limited transfers. Members also asked about revenue replacement if ad valorem taxes were reduced or eliminated, and the panel said options would likely include user fees, service cuts, or other local revenue shifts. The chair also asked about public safety consolidation, and the response was that such decisions are local and may shift costs rather than create true savings. The committee then heard from county representatives after an overview by the Florida Association of Counties’ Davin Suggs, who framed counties as shared partners with the state and emphasized the gap between rising market values and the shrinking share of taxable value after exemptions and assessment limits. He said counties face a mismatch between revenue based on taxable value and expenses driven by real-world costs, and noted that most counties either held millage steady or lowered it without reaching rollback rates. He also highlighted that property taxes are only one part of county revenue, with charges for services and intergovernmental revenue often larger in some counties, and that public safety at the county level includes more than law enforcement, such as EMS, emergency management, inspections, and corrections. Deborah Manzo of Okeechobee County described a fiscally constrained rural county with limited staff, a county-supported airport, heavy reliance on property taxes for the general fund, and major cost pressures from inflation, insurance, retirement, and state and federal mandates. She said the county lowered millage slightly over recent years but still depends on multiple revenue sources and special assessments, and she flagged Medicaid, medical examiner costs, and possible firefighter workweek changes as significant concerns. Bay County Administrator Mark McQueen said his county’s budget is shaped by Hurricane Michael recovery, non-discretionary obligations, and rapid growth; he described ongoing FEMA reimbursement delays, substantial borrowing to cover disaster costs, and continuing interest expenses while the county waits for reimbursement. The county panel was still in progress when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it wouldn't hold up that process or circumvent or shorten that process. Okay, that's different.
• or circumvent or shorten that process or circumvent or shorten that<00:33:42.120> process<00:
• It's consistent with the federal historic preservation review process.
• descendants and go through that process descendants and go through that process of<00:53:30.720>
• Thank you. risk assessment court or uh process is risk assessment court or uh process is not<01:01:09.079

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Housing Committee heard testimony on several housing-related bills. On SB 26, SD 2, relating to affordable housing, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development explained a prior transit-oriented development study that identified roughly 59,000 possible units and about 25,000 affordable units from known projects, and said the bill would help fill gaps by evaluating additional public lands for housing suitability and possible co-use with existing facilities. Members asked about the need for resources and staffing to do that work, and OPSD said it would need time and consultant support to carry it out. Testimony on the bill included support from state and county housing agencies and comments from planning and land use entities. On SB 66, SD 2, relating to housing and historic preservation review, SHPD and OHA both testified. SHPD said the bill would not override existing burial-site protections and that county staff with proper qualifications could make historic-property determinations locally, while OHA asked for clearer language requiring consultation when Native Hawaiian historic sites are involved and clearer procedures if an adverse effect is found. Committee members and SHPD discussed whether the bill should explicitly preserve existing Chapter 6E processes, whether counties have qualified staff, and how quickly a county would have to decide if it cannot complete the review itself and must use a third-party reviewer. Supporters said the measure could speed permitting and keep decisions local; one opponent argued it could rush approvals and strain infrastructure. The committee also heard support from housing, construction, business, and food-industry groups, and opposition from some preservation and community advocates. The committee then heard SB 332, SD 1, on foreclosure-related protections, with testimony focused on Lānaʻi and concerns about speculative real estate after the foreclosure moratorium ended. SB 414, SD 2, on restoring access to disaster-affected areas, drew support from HHFDC, DHS, and the Maui Chamber; HHFDC noted DOH plans for a temporary paved access road to the Kayola temporary housing site and said agencies were discussing which parcels would be needed. On SB 102, SD 2, relating to affordable housing and third-party historic review, SHPD said it would need to do more upfront screening and that the bill’s timelines and third-party provisions should be clearer; OHA said the measure should include a sunset and better staffing, and asked that the department fill positions to meet review demand. No votes or final committee actions were reported in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• is appointed through a political process is appointed through a political process the<00:06:34.520
• <00:17:02.839> my because when I was doing the process my because when I was doing the process
• <00:48:01.640> uh<00:48:02.240> go processes uh go processes uh go on<00:48:04.520>
• I was, uh, and as you've heard, the nomination process and the selection process is very lengthy.
• Thank you very much. process work so that way if that's the process work so that way if that's the process

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 610, which would fold the Office of the Consumer Advocate into the Department of Energy rather than fully eliminate consumer advocacy functions. The prime sponsor argued the current office is small, funded by a special assessment on ratepayers, and duplicative of DOE work. He said moving the function to DOE would streamline energy policy review, reduce bureaucracy, and better focus the larger agency on lowering residential energy costs. He also disputed claims that the Consumer Advocate is independent, saying the office is appointed through a political process similar to DOE leadership. Committee members and the sponsor discussed whether the bill would actually relocate existing positions or replace them, and whether the Department of Energy would absorb the cost of the transferred staff. The sponsor said the fiscal note shows roughly a million-dollar reduction in both revenue assessment and spending, and that the bill would effectively reduce the office from five positions to three. He also defended his cost estimates for energy-code-related housing impacts and said the Consumer Advocate has sometimes supported policies he считает increase costs, such as energy-efficiency measures and building code changes. He argued the office should focus more on energy supply and generation, including natural gas and nuclear, rather than efficiency alone. Representative Wendy Thomas testified in opposition, saying the Consumer Advocate is an important, fair, and impartial voice for ratepayers and warning that the bill was fiscally irresponsible because the incumbent could still be owed salary and benefits if the office were repealed. She also said the bill’s drafting was confusing and that the Consumer Advocate’s role is to push back on utilities on behalf of consumers. Other members raised questions about whether the DOE would simply inherit the same political appointment structure and whether the bill would meaningfully lower bills. No vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair indicated additional testimony would follow, and the Department of Energy was present to answer questions.