Transcript Highlights:

• [Applause] I want to talk about our process going forward.
• But that is also true in the appropriations process.
• That is a healthy process because as hard as we try to do a good job, we make mistakes.
• That process can be a part of our regular legislative work.
• It's our belief it was an oversight, A glitch in the veto process.

Transcript Highlights:

• He raises concerns evaluation process.
• . process. process.
• the lang the process language from 369. the lang the process language from 369.
• Uh and the process convicted.
• I don't know the exact process. I don't know the exact process.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The hearing process.
• So my question is, does the current process or procedure...
• The regional flood planning process was modeled after the very successful water planning process that's
• Is it adequate in its processing capability?
• That all went through a FEMA process.

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• qualifications and application processes qualifications and application processes specific<00:17
• doing those type of monitoring process doing those type of monitoring process so<01:07:38.200>
• well this is It's a complicated process well this is It's a complicated process and<01:15:59.880
• So it wasn't a competitive process. go through a ranking process for these go through a ranking process
• online and so uh part of the process online and so uh part of the process these<01:50:56.760>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Department of Education’s Bureau of Wellness and Nutrition presented an overview of the school meal and child nutrition programs it administers, including the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, and Special Milk Program. Staff explained which programs are federally funded through USDA, which have state matching funds, and how reimbursement rates are set for different programs and fiscal years. They also walked the committee through a packet showing reimbursement tables, state and federal funding totals, and eligibility data. Members focused much of their questioning on how state and federal reimbursements work for lunch and breakfast, why lunch is shown as a state match while breakfast has meal-based breakdowns, and how the department allocates funds in the budget. The department explained that lunch uses a set state match tied to federal requirements, while breakfast reimbursement is based on meals served. They also reviewed FY 22-24 funding trends, noting higher federal spending during COVID-era waivers and lower amounts as those waivers ended. A committee member asked for the data in Excel and the department agreed to provide it. The discussion also covered summer meal programs and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-run benefit program that provides funds to families; the two programs coordinate through data sharing but are not the same. Members also discussed CEP, with staff explaining that New Hampshire currently has three schools participating, that the qualifying threshold was reduced from 40% to 25% identified students, and that districts must cover the non-federal share with non-federal funds. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• And as you acknowledge, you haven't completed the public process.
• Before Senate Bill 350, the CCAs are now part of the resource planning process.
• That process is an ongoing common process that is our ordinary work that we do in assessing all the six
• That process is an ongoing common process that is our ordinary work that we do in assessing all the six
• That process is an ongoing common process that is our ordinary work that we do in assessing all the six

Summary: The committee first heard Issue 1 on trailer bill language to redirect funding for emergency demand-response programs. The Department of Finance proposed using about $26.9 million in General Fund originally set aside for the Distributed Energy Backup Assets program to bolster the Demand-Side Grid Support Program for summer 2026, and using about $70 million in CalCHAP interest to support ratepayer-funded demand response in summers 2027 and 2028. The CEC and CPUC said they are working on a transition from DSGS to ELRP or a successor program, while the LAO noted the General Fund money would otherwise revert to savings. Members pressed the administration on whether demand response remains important, whether DSGS has been successful, and whether the state should keep funding it through the CEC rather than shifting to a ratepayer-funded CPUC program. The CEC and CPUC said the programs are not directly comparable, emphasized different cost structures and enrollment metrics, and said a CPUC rulemaking is underway with a proposed decision expected in Q3 2026. No vote was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up Issue 2, a budget proposal tied to SB 254 and the new transmission accelerator. GoBiz and the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank described a five-year, roughly $26 million request to staff and administer the accelerator and manage Proposition 4 and AB 1207 funds for transmission financing. Members asked about state liability, ownership of financed lines, FERC revenue requirements, and whether the program would help underserved regions and offshore wind development. Staff explained that the accelerator would only consider projects already identified through CAISO’s competitive transmission planning process, and that state financing would be a small portion of large projects intended to lower overall costs to ratepayers. The LAO said it had no specific concerns but urged the Legislature to ensure the final language matches its intent. The committee also heard Issue 3 on petroleum market oversight. The CEC and its Division of Petroleum Market Oversight requested additional positions and funding to implement ABX2-1 and continue work on supply stabilization, refinery monitoring, and transportation fuels analysis. Members questioned why the work was funded through the Energy Resources Programs Account, whether existing staff from the paused price-gouging work could be reassigned, and whether the program had produced evidence of price gouging or improved supply conditions. CEC and Finance said the new positions are needed because the workload has expanded, while some existing staff remain on related analysis and reporting duties. The discussion ended without a vote in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this bill, as the Senator says, seeks to make further improvements to the POLST process in California
• I think it's a new process and I think that... We've been able to do through CARE Court.
• Who is it that's requesting this, and what is the process, and is there a stay on the involvement of
• Nothing's going to happen until they get to the application process.
• and rebuilding in a community that's been That it takes for the rebuild process, typically.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, remediation and restoration are two very complementary but distinct processes.
• Um, we are in the process of putting together a trustee.
• We are in the process of looking at the San Juan Generating Station.
• What, what is the process now? Mr.
• That process, I, I forget the number of the slide, but you know, I laid out what the nerd process is,

Transcript Highlights:

• The claims process for the joint subcommittee on claims is a process for people to file claims against
• > the<00:01:15.280> joint claims process uh for the joint claims process uh for the joint
• <00:01:16.799> for subcommittee on claims is a process for subcommittee on claims is a process
• So uh what we normal tort process for.
• <00:27:46.000> so Minnesota's broken permitting process so Minnesota's broken permitting process

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• AND THEIR RULE UNDER 59 FOUR SPECIFIES THE USE OF SURVEY MEASURES, ESTABLISHES SUBMITTAL PROCESS AND
• WE ARE CREATING A PROCESS AND TOOL FOR RECEIVING THE SURVEY RESULTS IN NURSING HOMES BEGIN ADMINISTERING
• THAT'S AN ONGOING LEVER WE HAVE THAT IS BUILT INTO OUR REGULAR MONITORING PROCESS.
• BACKING UP FROM THERE WE WENT THROUGH THE STEPS OF THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS.
• NEGOTIATING PROCESS WE BE TURNING OUR ATTENTION TO THAT SHORTLY.

Transcript Highlights:

• uses a standard and consistent process.
• As you read the bill, what does it do to change the existing audit process?
• Poll watchers have access to the entire process and often sensitive information.
• The process right now is risky and cumbersome.
• And then there's a cumbersome process, which I won't go through.

Bills: HB223

Keywords: municipal budget, county budget, local government finance, spending cap, expenditure limit, inflation plus population growth, taxpayer impact statement, budget transparency, property tax, fees, Legislative Budget Board, voter approval, disaster spending, fiscal restraint, Texas Local Government Code, city budget, county expenditures

Summary: The Committee on State Affairs heard several House bills, with most measures left pending after testimony and later taken up in a batch of votes. Early in the meeting, HB 5624 on liability protections for motocross/off-road vehicle tracks, HB 223 on requiring competitive procurement for municipal lobbying contracts, HB 3709 on post-election audit procedures, and HB 5081 on protecting personal information of judicial officers and court staff were all discussed and left pending after testimony. Witnesses on HB 223 supported greater transparency in municipal lobbying contracts. HB 3709 drew sharp opposition from an election integrity advocate who argued the bill would reduce precinct-level granularity and make it harder to detect ballot errors, while a Secretary of State resource witness said the bill would simplify and standardize the audit process by location. HB 5081 received strong support from court administration and a district judge who described prior threats and an attack tied to publicly available personal information. The committee also heard HB 3546 on allowing school districts to move elections to November, HB 493 on barring certain felony offenders from serving as poll watchers, HB 5115 on increasing penalties for election fraud and related conduct, HB 4081 on trade secret filing procedures, HB 3909 on limiting restrictions on wireless devices at polling places, HB 2702 on limiting gubernatorial closure authority for certain veterans organizations during pandemics, HB 119 on foreign adversary lobbying, and HB 5138 on the Attorney General’s authority to prosecute election crimes. Several of these bills were explained with committee substitutes and then left pending before final action. Testimony on HB 493 and HB 5115 came from an election integrity advocate who supported both bills, saying the poll watcher restriction was appropriately narrowed and that the election fraud bill would help address invalid votes and refusal to count valid votes. Later, the committee took up pending business and voted out a large number of bills, generally along party lines or with broad support. HB 186 on minors’ social media use, HB 229, HB 2885, HB 3909 as substituted, HB 4285, HB 1661, HB 2820, HB 3181, HB 4157, HB 223, HB 521, HB 640, HB 1234, HB 2253, HB 2294, HB 3053, HB 3697 as substituted, HB 4281, HB 4463, HB 4995, HB 5081 as substituted, HB 5624 as substituted, HB 119 as substituted, HB 3225, HB 5138 as substituted, HB 5115, HB 481 as substituted, HB 3546, HB 493, and HB 4145 were reported favorably to the full Senate, with several also placed on the local and uncontested calendar. The committee also adopted committee substitutes for multiple bills, including HB 3909, HB 5081, HB 5624, HB 119, HB 5138, and HB 481. At the end, the chair noted another committee meeting would likely be needed before deadlines, possibly on a weekend, and recessed the committee subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• It was just the process that was followed.
• And so having to make some changes so that we can streamline that process, the OCOVA Board is not being
• In this Section 6, there is a process to keep appealing, appealing, appealing all the way to the, you
• I don't think so, but I'm just... because it is a competitive grant process.
• But the other thing that I would like to see is that, Way to process it.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 2025, the Department of Veterans Affairs appropriation. Representative O’Brien explained the House changes, including funding for a restored Veterans Benefits Specialist FTE, salary equity adjustments for the commissioner and veterans service officers, one-time funding for veteran homelessness services, carryover authority for the Fargo Fisher House, and a highly rural transportation grants program. Members also discussed the commissioner’s prior salary increase and the use of transportation grant funds for administrative costs, as well as the status of the Fisher House project. The committee adopted amendment 25.092.0203 and then gave SB 2025 a do pass recommendation as amended, with Representative O’Brien as carrier. The committee then considered Senate Bill 2307, the library bill. Members debated a proposed amendment that would have removed the fiscal note, but several members objected on policy and process grounds, citing constitutional concerns, potential costs to counties and state’s attorneys, and the fact that the bill had not been heard as a full policy hearing. The amendment failed 4-19. The committee then voted do not pass on SB 2307 as introduced, and Representative Murphy was named carrier. The committee also briefly discussed House Bill 2188 on the Clean Sustainable Energy Authority. Representative Bosch described the program’s grant and low-interest loan authority and the Senate’s reduced funding levels. The committee amended the bill to restore the Senate funding amounts in Section 3, then passed the bill as amended, with Representative Kempenich carrying it. Finally, the committee considered two rural development bills and chose Senate Bill 2097, the rural endowment fund bill, for do not pass while advancing House Bill 2390, which uses regional councils to distribute rural development grants. The committee amended HB 2390 to lower the population threshold from 4,500 to 3,000, kept the 50% set-aside for communities under 1,500, and then passed the bill as amended, with Representative Mitskog as carrier.

Transcript Highlights:

• case<00:30:31.760> reviews, document processes like case reviews, document processes like
• So the process that we're using to acquire tower property right now is not the process that we used before
• The process that we're using to acquire tower property right now is not the process that we used before
• c> as<01:38:10.239> Brandon those are in process as Brandon those are in process as Brandon
• So, I have to to expedite the process.

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• How many people currently process these applications now, and how many people process them?
• And applications are processed timely.
• the applications that can't be processed the applications that can't be processed because<02:05:
• We have seen some improvement processed.
• application is um not being processed application is um not being processed for<02:08:35.840>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and the enrolling process is led process and the enrolling process is led by<01:33:53.800> the
• The process is still the process.
• enrolled bills process.
• of that legislative process.
• process process and then the legislative process process and then paragraph<04:26:43.760> three

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first dealt with scheduling and housekeeping, including a plan to take a hard break at 2:00 p.m. for an early bill, hold a brief executive session, and then continue with the remaining afternoon bills. The chair also noted the next likely meeting date would be March 12, when the committee expected to take up the remaining bills before crossover deadlines. The main substantive item was House Bill 142, which would recognize the Honor and Remember flag for Gold Star families and related remembrance purposes. Prime sponsor Rep. Michael Moffett described the bill as a bipartisan measure revised to address earlier concerns, arguing that the flag honors fallen service members, can be personalized with names, and complements rather than detracts from the American flag. He said many other states have already adopted it and suggested the committee could amend details such as the number of days and locations for display. He also raised practical issues about flag dimensions and whether the bill should use "shall" or "may" for display requirements. Testimony was divided. Janine Nutter opposed the bill, saying she supports Gold Star families but objected because the flag resembles the Viet Cong flag and because she believes the American flag should remain the sole symbol representing servicemembers. Kevin Grady, representing the State Veterans Advisory Committee under RSA 115:8, also opposed the bill, saying the committee believes the American flag is the only symbol needed, while still praising the work of Honor and Remember in creating personalized flags for families. Committee members asked questions about where the flag would be flown, whether the State Veterans Cemetery in Boscawen is already displaying it, and how the bill’s language would interact with cemetery policies and committee discretion. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a process here that we legislate every year. But then once that process...
• But what we've learned through this process...
• And so, you know, we have to start this process.
• So there is a process for that.
• So there is a process for that.

Summary: The committee met for an informational hearing focused largely on the state capital outlay process and House Bill 2. Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration/Facility Planning and Control described how the office prepares and administers the capital outlay bill, said the bill has grown substantially over five years, and argued that recent changes in culture, staffing, project management, cash-flow analysis, and use of third-party support have more than doubled project expenditures and improved delivery. Members asked about the use and cost of third-party project managers, delegation of smaller projects to agencies, hiring difficulties, and whether the changes represented better interpretation of existing law versus statutory changes. Husser said some statutes were amended, some internal customs were removed, and the office would provide a list of those changes. He also explained that the office is trying to move away from overly rigid practices and toward faster project completion while still following public-bid and oversight rules. A major portion of the discussion centered on the size and structure of the capital outlay bill, especially the gap between Priority 1 cash capacity and the much larger Priority 5 backlog. Husser said the current annual Priority 1 limit is tied to construction inflation and is about $574 million, with additional surplus funds also available, but that the bill contains far more Priority 5 funding than can realistically move in a five-year plan. He and members discussed dormant projects, scope creep, legacy projects that have sat in the bill for years, and the problem of false expectations for non-state entities. Proposed solutions included limiting Priority 5 to five times Priority 1, requiring annual re-endorsement by members, setting district or project caps for non-state projects, requiring time limits and reporting for grant-like non-state projects, placing matches in escrow, requiring design readiness before submission, and consolidating the many existing reporting requirements into one clearer report. Members also discussed bundling multiple projects under one agency project, which the House had begun piloting for LSU, UL Lafayette, Southern, and DOTD, and which Husser said could improve flexibility, reduce overappropriation, and better reflect actual spending. Baker then explained cash-flow management and the commitment process, saying FPC now analyzes projects annually to estimate what can actually be spent in the next fiscal year and uses commitments to allow projects to proceed when future-year funding is expected. He said overappropriations can result from poor cash-flow estimates, delays, dormant projects, or projects coming in under budget, and that the office is already reworking cash-flow assumptions and reappropriating savings where possible. Members also raised concerns about change orders and low bids; staff said project managers review change orders closely, require concurrence on non-state projects, and sometimes reduce scope to keep projects within budget. After FPC’s presentation, the committee heard the beginning of Louisiana Economic Development’s capital outlay discussion, where LED explained that its projects generally fall into three categories, including the Economic Development Awards Program and Site Readiness Program, both used to support targeted economic development and job creation.

Transcript Highlights:

• President, they have to go through permitting process.
• Have a better quality when it comes to the permitting process and the inspection process.
• President, so that'll be the application process.
• Um Of that actual body of of this process.
• I mean, there's processes and maybe that's the problem here.

Transcript Highlights:

• preclude this hastened pering process preclude this hastened pering process from<00:21:22.720>
• We are in process.
• or to be be executed are you in process or to be in<00:29:55.240> process<00:29:55.640> we
• <00:29:56.880> had<00:29:57.080> some in process we are in process we had some in process
• Yes, Senator, just to clarify, it's really a two-step process.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing began with SB 133 on energy, which drew opposition testimony from James Abraham, who said the bill was unnecessary because the Public Utilities Commission had already opened a proceeding to investigate wheeling, including intergovernmental wheeling, and should be allowed to finish its collaborative process. The committees then moved to SB 161 on county permitting and inspection, where several agencies submitted written comments or opposition, while the Grassroots Institute and HCDA-related testimony supported the measure. Members raised concerns about accountability and whether state agencies would report back on projects approved under any permitting exemption, and witnesses suggested annual reporting or amendment language to address that issue. The hearing then turned to SB 232 and SB 588, both related to renewable energy permitting. Testimony on SB 232 was largely supportive, but Rocky Mold of the Hawaii Solar Energy Association said SB 232 was an older version of a bill and that SB 588 was the preferred, updated measure. Members discussed whether the bill should be limited to residential or behind-the-meter customer-sited systems rather than utility-scale projects, and Mold clarified that the proposal was intended for customer-sited systems, not utility-scale facilities. For SB 588, the Department of Land and Natural Resources warned that state or county laws inconsistent with the National Flood Insurance Program could jeopardize flood insurance eligibility and related federal assistance, while Mold argued the bill’s FEMA floodway exemption was needed to avoid blocking solar installations on existing structures. The chair expressed concern about risking federal funding and questioned whether the exemption could be narrowed without defeating the bill’s purpose. SB 412, also on renewable energy, received supportive testimony from the State Energy Office and others. Members questioned whether a single coordinating entity should compile agency assessments, and Mark Glick said the Energy Office could take on that role if given the duty and sufficient staff. The committee then discussed SB 635 on energy efficiency, which would require state agencies to use energy-efficient lighting. Mark Glick testified that much of the work was already underway through benchmarking and related contracts, and a DAGS representative said the state was already assessing 590 buildings over 10,000 square feet, with results expected around 2027. Members suggested amending the bill to require annual status reports so the committees could track progress and avoid duplication. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• An opt-out of processing isn't the same as deletion.
• Processing is a defined term in the CCPA.
• They believed in the process. They showed up.
• The integrity of every public participation process in this state is at stake.
• The integrity of every public participation process is in this state.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• less inclined to seek out a lawyer or to initiate the process.
• less inclined to seek out a lawyer or to initiate the process.
• This bill establishes a... ...process and transparency in Arizona.
• through the local initiative process.
• It does this by bringing the same process.

Bills: HB2028, HB2047, HB2136, HB2244, HB2364, HB2406, HB2415, HB2557, HB2573, HB2589, HB2720, HB2749, HB2825, HB2861, HB2862, HB2870, HB2970, HB4070, HB4117, HCR2004, HCR2051

Keywords: community restitution, homelessness, indigence, court assessments, monetary obligations, forcible entry, detainer, writ of restitution, criminal trespass, judgment enforcement, civil terrorism, disorderly conduct, vandalism, political activism, public order, subversion, government security, evictions, judgment satisfaction, tenant rights

Transcript Highlights:

• But I think it's important to make it clear that this is a very complex process.
• But I think it's important to make it clear that this is a very complex process.
• And I think that's the way the process should go, and we look forward to continuing this process.
• process. Thank you, Mr. President. process. Thank you, Mr. President.
• So, to the throughout the process.

Keywords: 958, all