Transcript Highlights:

• And with that, we’ll move on from performance metrics for JLARC to the performance metrics to... ...from
• performance metrics for JLARC to tax preference performance statement reviews, and I want to do a little
• metric in a performance statement.
• To prepare those fiscal notes, we have historically evaluated the components of a tax preference performance
• Our next item is performance measurement. Performance measurements, performance, right.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee met on January 7, 2026, approved the December minutes, and adopted an amended work plan. Staff proposed moving the drug take-back program sunset review up to 2026 and delaying the thermal energy network pilot review to 2028, which would free capacity for new studies. Members also discussed active bills that would eliminate two recurring JLARC reports, including one on lodging tax revenue data collection, and the committee adopted the work plan without objection. JLARC staff then outlined new performance measures for the committee itself, covering effectiveness, efficiency, and quality. The measures include member and legislative satisfaction surveys, presentations to other committees, recommendation follow-up, staff retention, on-time report delivery, peer review results, and national recognition. Members praised the effort and did not take formal action, treating the measures as an ongoing process. The committee also heard a proposal to improve JLARC’s review of tax preference performance statements by adding a standard rubric in fiscal notes to assess whether a metric matches the policy objective, is measurable, uses reliable data, and allows enough time for evaluation. Members supported the pilot approach. Staff also described planned changes to public records reporting guidance, including opt-outs for low-volume metrics, better validation, targeted outreach to nonreporting agencies, and a survey of records officers. Two preliminary reports were presented. On ignition interlock devices, JLARC found that only 41% of drivers with a requirement had installed a device, with installation rates rising sharply with income; financial assistance reaches only about 11% of users, and JLARC recommended clearer program goals and stronger coordination between the Department of Licensing and State Patrol. On the drug take-back program, JLARC found that the fee structure tied to operator expenditures limits the Department of Health’s ability to recover oversight costs and recommended public reporting of oversight spending and a statutory change to better align fees with actual costs. Agency representatives generally agreed with the findings, described current coordination and administrative changes, and said they would consider the recommendations. No formal votes were taken on the reports, which will return in final form later in the year.

Transcript Highlights:

• , but requires student performance to make up half of the evaluation.
• , but requires student performance to make up half of the evaluation.
• What impact will this have on teacher performance evaluations? Okay. Thank you. Let's move on.
• What impact will this have on teacher performance evaluations?
• student performance. ...for those students to better measure and evaluate student performance, so it

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 296, as amended by strike-all, on middle and high school start times. Senator Bradley explained that the amendment would repeal the statewide mandate for later start times and return scheduling decisions to local school boards, while still requiring districts to inform the community about the health, safety, and academic effects of sleep deprivation and to consider later start times when setting transportation schedules. Testimony and debate were largely in support, with several school district and education group representatives waiving in support, and members citing transportation, staffing, family logistics, and cost concerns under the existing mandate. The strike-all was adopted, and SB 296 was reported favorably by roll call vote, with Senators Berman, Osgood, and Chair Calatayud voting yes and Senator Gaetz voting no; other members were absent or not recorded in the excerpt. The committee then heard Senate Bill 356, which would designate January 27 as Holocaust Remembrance Day in Florida. Senator Berman said the date matches the UN’s Holocaust Remembrance Day and would require the governor to annually proclaim it, while allowing public observance and instruction about the Holocaust’s harms and its impact on the Jewish community and humanity. There was no substantive opposition in the excerpt, and the bill was reported favorably by roll call vote with yes votes from Senators Berman, Gaetz, and Chair Calatayud. Finally, the committee considered Senate Bill 166 on administrative efficiency in public schools. Senator Simon described a broad deregulation package affecting student assessments, grade promotion, teacher evaluations, contracts and certification, school board operations, instructional materials timelines, internal audits, facilities planning, cost-per-student-station limits, emergency make-up days, federal fund timing, and VPK oversight. Testimony was mixed: school district and education organization representatives generally supported the flexibility, while some groups opposed or urged changes to the grade 4 promotion and graduation-related provisions, arguing they could weaken academic standards. After debate focused especially on third-grade promotion and testing requirements, the bill was reported favorably by roll call vote. At the end of the meeting, members recorded their votes on SB 296 and SB 356, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• DeMaio mentioned, objective six has us focus on evaluating the extent to which SANDAG accurately...
• And having this audit is, I think, an important step to evaluating whether that's appropriate.
• of program performance, recidivism outcomes, or long-term effectiveness.
• of program performance, recidivism outcomes, or long-term effectiveness.
• I'm pleased to present an audit to evaluate the Department of Human Resources...

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving into requirements of grantee performance evaluation, uh, this was also something that was discussed
• In April 2024, OGM launched a new grantee evaluation site where agencies are now required to upload performance
• </c><00:08:37.479><c> evaluation</c><00:08:38.479><c> uh</c><00:08:38.640><c> this</c> grantee performance
• evaluation uh this grantee performance evaluation uh this was<00:08:39.000><c> also</c><00:08:39.320
• c> over</c> performance evaluations for Grants over performance evaluations for Grants over $25,000<00

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• select the program evaluation topics.
• </c><00:12:19.720><c> those</c> related to our program evaluations those related to our program evaluations
• </c> of the focus of the program evaluation of the focus of the program evaluation Division<00:12:32.040
• There's no other state agency that performs the variation and variety of work that they perform, but
• </c> term every year we do a performance term every year we do a performance review<01:33:55.480><c>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• criteria and proposals are evaluated against that.
• We don't have a program evaluation division.
• We may not be able to evaluate every program, but how do we select which?
• We may not be able to evaluate every program, but how do we select which programs we're going to evaluate
• But it seems like they're evaluating programs in that section.

Summary: The task force approved the March 25, 2026 minutes as amended, striking language about contracting with a security vendor. Members then reviewed a draft bill on concessions procurement (LC 27.0161), which would raise the competitive solicitation threshold from $25,000 to $50,000, allow requests for proposals in addition to bids, update language for vending and merchandising machines, and clarify where concession proceeds are deposited. OMB explained the bill and said it was open to further changes, including language to address artificial fragmentation, clarify which government entities are covered, and possibly set contract-length limits. Members raised questions about whether the bill would apply to school districts, park districts, airports, and other political subdivisions, and about whether concession agreements could direct proceeds to nonprofits or other secondary recipients; OMB said the statute is intended to require proceeds to go to the government entity’s operating fund or general fund. OMB also reported on other survey suggestions. It said a proposed general authority for agencies to create pre-qualified architect/engineering vendor pools would not move forward, because the existing authority is best limited to high-volume agencies. On legal notices, OMB said it had made progress with the North Dakota Newspaper Association on modernizing online notices, improving ADA compliance, and discussing rate and definition changes. On click-through agreements, OMB and the Attorney General’s office concluded no statutory change was needed after revising internal guidance; the $20,000 threshold was described as a practical cutoff for adhesive, nonnegotiable software terms. OMB also said issues raised by the Center for Distance Education on alternate procurements and food/beverage expenditures had been resolved through policy clarification. The University System gave a brief update on its collaboration with OMB and said it was continuing to review concessions, surplus property, and capital project statutes with all institutions involved. The task force then discussed a draft bill on requirements for new or expanded spending, intended to require agencies to identify program purpose, needs, alternatives, success measures, and budget details, and to report on outcomes over time. Members and staff debated whether OMB or Legislative Council should collect and report the information, how much should be real-time versus periodic, and whether the bill should include full implementation costs for pilot programs. Legislative Council staff said the new program evaluation division is still being built out, that staffing remains limited, and that the office plans to continue working with OMB and the executive branch to refine the proposal before the next meeting. No final action was taken on the draft bills beyond directing further work and follow-up for the next meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• So to evaluate these mechanisms, we developed five evaluative criteria that are really intended to address
• We are currently underway with the evaluation process.
• And then finally, under performance monitoring, does the program have clear, trackable performance metrics
• In terms of the evaluation phase, the evaluation is underway.
• We're still evaluating it. So far, this has worked out pretty good. We're still evaluating it.

Summary: The committee began with member introductions, then heard a presentation on a draft final report studying alternative funding mechanisms for sidewalks and related pedestrian infrastructure. Consultants said current local funding sources are insufficient, with most jurisdictions unable to complete planned sidewalk networks within 50 years. They evaluated four options: a sidewalk utility fee, a modified transportation benefit district sales tax, a new real estate excise tax option, and expanded stormwater fee use for ADA sidewalk ramps. The consultants recommended authorizing the modified TBD sales tax and new REET option, considering a sidewalk utility despite legal uncertainty, broadening any authorization to all pedestrian improvements, and not pursuing the stormwater fee option. Members asked about legal authority, fairness, revenue adequacy, and whether jurisdictions had been consulted; the presenters said state enabling legislation would likely be needed for a sidewalk utility and that fairness could be defined either by direct benefit or by need. The committee then received an update on the 2025 assessment of city transportation funding needs. The consultants reported that city transportation revenues have grown in some local and federal categories since 2019, but state revenues have remained relatively flat and smaller cities are especially affected by declining fuel tax revenues and limited tax bases. They estimated annual city transportation needs at $4.25 billion, average annual spending at $1.89 billion, and a funding gap of $2.37 billion, larger than in the prior study because of updated data, inclusion of system improvements, and higher preservation costs. Draft recommendations focused on reducing costs and improving efficiency, preserving and increasing state support, and expanding local funding options, including preservation-first spending, a permanent federal fund exchange program, streamlined review processes, better coordination with WSDOT, possible property tax flexibility, and exploration of new local tools. Members raised questions about design standards, the role of density and transit, federal compliance, and whether the report would identify specific consolidation or process changes. The committee also heard a project update on evaluating zero-emission vehicle and electrification programs funded by the Climate Commitment Act. Consultants said they had reviewed roughly 23 programs and projects across seven agencies and were now evaluating options to improve delivery, including process improvements, reorganizing programs, or consolidating governance and administrative functions. Early findings highlighted staffing shortages, duplication and variation across agencies, differing levels of risk, and the challenge of coordinating climate priorities across agencies with other core missions. Members asked about program outcomes, administrative costs, whether some programs should have exit strategies, and how to strengthen the EV Coordinating Council. Finally, WSDOT provided an implementation update on its new public-private partnership authority under SB 5801, saying work is underway to prepare governance, legal, policy, and organizational structures ahead of the January 1, 2027 effective date.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are we trying to put them on a personal performance type evaluation? Personal improvement.
• evaluations.
• They're either performing or not performing.
• So, you know, that's the answer: that's how they are evaluated in terms of their performance through
• our teacher evaluation system.

Transcript Highlights:

• evaluations.
• evaluations.
• The employees' wages or performance evaluations.
• evaluations.
• So we want to make sure, I think... ...employees and their performance evaluations.

Summary: The House Appropriations Committee held a public hearing on House Bill 2565, which would require University of Washington gifts, grants, and similar funds to be invested through the Washington State Investment Board instead of UW’s internal investment office. Staff and the prime sponsor argued the change would lower fees and improve returns, while UW’s representatives opposed the bill, citing concerns about donor intent, legal restrictions on thousands of individual endowments, and differences in portfolio management and liquidity needs. No questions were raised in the hearing, and no action was taken on the bill at that time. The committee then moved into executive session on several bills. On Third Substitute House Bill 1607, related to recycling and waste reduction, members adopted a technical amendment but rejected amendments that would have directed unredeemed deposits to the Working Families Tax Credit and litter programs, added accountability requirements for grants, or created a SNAP-related benefit. The bill was then reported out of committee with a do pass recommendation on a 17-13 vote. On Second Substitute House Bill 1622, concerning bargaining over public employers’ use of artificial intelligence, members adopted one amendment updating the AI definition and rejected three others that would have narrowed bargaining triggers or limited the bill to technologies with demonstrable material impacts. The bill was reported out with a do pass recommendation on a 19-11 vote. The committee also advanced House Bill 2254, which would cover administrative costs for the Partnership Access Line assessment, and House Bill 2385, which extends timelines for the Medicaid access program after federal changes affected implementation; both were reported out with do pass recommendations. House Bill 2531, continuing and adjusting the ground transportation quality assurance fee structure, also passed out of committee. Finally, House Bill 2543, allowing county clerks to increase certain fees to cover court-related costs, was reported out with a do pass recommendation on a 22-6 vote. The committee adjourned after completing its business.

Transcript Highlights:

• And with that, we'll move on from performance metrics for JLARC to the performance metrics to... ...from
• performance metrics for JLARC to tax preference performance statement reviews.
• metric in a performance statement.
• To prepare those fiscal notes, we have historically evaluated the components of a tax preference performance
• Our next item is performance measurement. Our next item is performance measurement.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee met on January 7, 2026, approved the December minutes, and adopted an amended work plan. Staff proposed moving the drug takeback program sunset review up to 2026 and delaying the thermal energy network pilot review to 2028, which would free capacity for new studies. Members also noted bills that would eliminate two recurring JLARC reports, including one on unemployment insurance training benefits and one on lodging tax revenue reporting. The committee then discussed JLARC’s own performance measures and a pilot approach for evaluating tax preference performance statements in fiscal notes. Staff said JLARC will begin surveying members and the full legislature on satisfaction, track invitations to present to other committees, monitor recommendation resolution rates, staff retention, on-time report delivery, peer review results, and national recognition. For tax preference reviews, staff proposed a standard rubric to assess whether performance metrics match policy goals, are measurable, use reliable data, and allow enough time for evaluation; members generally supported the effort. Staff also outlined planned changes to public records reporting, including allowing agencies to opt out of tracking low-volume metrics, targeted outreach to nonreporting agencies, better data validation, clearer online guidance, and a survey of public records officers. The main audit presentation was a preliminary report on ignition interlock device compliance and monitoring. JLARC found that about 41% of drivers required to install devices had done so, with installation rates rising sharply with income; half of affected drivers earned less than $28,000 a year, and the typical annual device cost was about $2,700. Staff said the state’s financial assistance program has limited reach and lacks clear goals, performance measures, and coordination between the Department of Licensing and State Patrol. They recommended that the agencies formalize their roles and develop a coordinated strategy to improve installation rates. State Patrol and Licensing said they support the findings, described recent outreach pilots, and said they would work on a management plan and possible expansion of outreach efforts. JLARC also presented an expedited preliminary report on the drug take-back program’s fee setting and expenditures. Staff concluded that the current fee design limits the Department of Health’s ability to recover oversight costs and that public reporting of oversight expenditures would improve transparency. They recommended that DOH publicly report its oversight activities and that the legislature amend the fee structure to remove the cap tied to program operator expenditures. DOH agreed the current structure does not fully recover costs and said it would support a statutory change. The committee adjourned after noting its next regular meeting is scheduled for April 8, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• , but requires student performance to make up half of the evaluations.
• It requires student performance to make up half of the evaluation and establishes a three-year teacher
• I will share my concern, and the reason I went down that road with the performance evaluation that we're
• student performance.
• But the weight of the student performance, we're placing on actual teacher performance evaluations.

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several recognitions, including state championship athletic teams, visiting chambers of commerce, apprentices, students, and other guests. The chamber then moved through a long third-reading calendar and special order calendar, with no committee reports or executive messages on the desk. A moment of silence was held for Walton County Deputy William Will May, who died in the line of duty. Among the major bills passed was SB 234, which strengthens restrictions on resisting law enforcement officers and increases penalties related to manslaughter of an officer; an amendment clarifying “good faith” in an officer’s duties was adopted, and the bill passed 37-0. The Senate also passed SB 7020 on open government review of certain cybersecurity information, SM 1488 urging Congress to create a U.S. sovereign wealth fund, SB 944 reducing the overpayment claim period for insurers/HMOs seeking reimbursement from licensed psychologists from 30 months to 12 months, SB 878 extending probation treatment options for misdemeanor offenses involving controlled substances, SB 538 updating the state court system, SB 480 expanding nonprofit agricultural medical benefit plans, SB 472 giving correctional education credit toward professional licensure, SB 86/House companion 421 expanding peer support for first responders to include support personnel, SB 164 on vessel accountability, SB 282 on warranty association financial requirements, SB 316 creating Series LLC rules, and SB 384 requiring notice to legislative delegations before municipal annexation of state-owned lands. The most debated measure was CS/CS/SB 56 on geoengineering and weather modification, which Garcia said would prohibit unauthorized atmospheric interventions, create reporting and enforcement mechanisms through DEP, and impose felony penalties; Polsky questioned the bill’s practicality, federal preemption issues, and agency capacity, while supporters said it would address public concerns and close loopholes. The Senate also passed CS/SB 166 on public school administrative efficiency after adopting several amendments affecting school purchasing timelines, third-grade retention exemptions, teacher contracts, certification, facilities planning, and an OPPAGA study of cost-per-student-station limits; senators debated testing, teacher evaluations, and school accountability. At the end of the day, the Senate waived rules to immediately certify all passed bills to the House, received budget process guidance from Appropriations Chair Hooper on SB 2500 and SB 2502 amendment deadlines, and then adjourned until April 9.

Transcript Highlights:

• With regards to our performance evaluations, which is the department's continued record, With regards
• to our performance evaluations, which I know is key to your inquiry today, these five foundational principles
• So let's key in on some of the performance and production review characteristics and items that we evaluate
• We have performance measures focused on these seven areas that you see on the screen that we evaluate
• When monitoring the performance of transit agencies, and contract management.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee met, took roll, and heard introductory remarks from members about their districts and transportation priorities, with several senators noting congestion and mobility challenges in their regions. The committee then received a presentation from the Florida Transportation Commission on its oversight role for FDOT, including annual and quarterly performance reviews, review of the five-year work program, and monitoring of tolling and transit authorities. Members asked whether the commission gets involved in project prioritization; the answer was no, because it is statutorily limited to high-level oversight rather than day-to-day project decisions. The committee next heard two reports related to transportation disadvantaged and paratransit services. FDOT’s Melissa Smith described the statewide Transportation Disadvantaged program, its governance structure, service models, and challenges such as fragmented administration, cost, inconsistent reporting, and rural service limitations. She outlined recommendations including better use of technology, regional partnerships, improved training, and alternative delivery models like microtransit and TNC partnerships. A University of South Florida researcher, Martin Katala, discussed best practices for paratransit and demand-response service, emphasizing route optimization software, dynamic dispatching, service standards, vendor accountability, and the use of TNCs and mobility management to improve efficiency and reduce travel times. A later presentation from UF’s I-Street program focused on emerging technologies for transit, including in-cabin monitoring, automatic restraints, accessible booking and tracking tools, and the need for statewide safety standards and better driver interfaces. Finally, FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue and District 5 Secretary John Tyler provided an update on the transition of SunRail local entities. They explained the differences among commuter rail, intercity rail, and light rail, and said SunRail’s financial transition to local partners was completed on January 1, with operational transition to follow over up to three years. They contrasted that with Tri-Rail, where FDOT still funds operations and discussions about a future transition are ongoing. Members asked about the differences between SunRail, Tri-Rail, Amtrak, and Brightline, and the presenters explained that commuter rail serves regional daily commuters while intercity rail connects regions. The committee concluded without taking any formal votes or other legislative action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Strong market performance does two things for this plan.
• So council members heard earlier about the evaluation report that OSA conducted.
• Council members heard earlier about the evaluation report that OSA conducted.
• And so the motion before us is for the Office of the State Actuary to perform an actuarial evaluation
• and analysis of each institution's... ...to perform an actuarial evaluation and analysis of each institution's

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , but it requires that student performance makes up half of the evaluation.
• I will share my concern and the reason I went down that road with the performance evaluation, that we
• student performance.
• The weight of the student performance we are placing on actual teachers' performance evaluations, that
• You know, student performance. That is the criteria for the teacher evaluations now.

Bills: SJR12, SCR39, SB27, SB29, SB241, SB406, SB414, SB464, SB568, SB578, SB609, SB660, SB689, SB693, SB785, SB857, SB879, SB921, SB922, SB955, SB985, SB993, SB996, SB1008, SB1035, SB1036, SB1059, SB1098, SB1120, SB1122, SB1147, SB1188, SB1197, SB1209, SB1227, SB1245, SB1267, SB1307, SB1321, SB1332, SB1386, SB1396, SB1453, SB1484, SB1494, SB1536, SB1537, SB1596, SB1610, SB1664, SB1741, SB1814, SB1822, SB1841, SB1948, SB2065, SB2155, SB2188, SB2230, SB2406, SB2407, SJR36, SJR12, SJR81, SJR50, SCR22, SCR12, SCR39, SB406, SB689, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB241, SB304, SB1023, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB955, SB957, SB1120, SB541, SB266, SB1415, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB711, SB746, SB1404, SB1448, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB667, SB1059, SB1567, SB310, SB311, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB1029, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB1350, SB462, SB827, SB1585, SB1396, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1841, SB2188, SB1147, SB879, SB1008, SB1536, SB2016, SB1453, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB27, SB568, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB860, SB993, SB693, SB1610, SB1537, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB922, SB984, SB619, SB1098, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1664, SB1877, SB464, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB660, SB731, SB921, SB268, SB1822, SB1188, SB1589, SB397, SB2230, SB1058, SB1036, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB1035, SB2155, SB508, SB29, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719, SB1386, SB287, SB2143, SB1245, SB261, SB1247, SB1948, SB2406, SB2407, SB1882, SB1197, SB1814, SB618, SB38, SB393, SB2065, SB1371, SB1394, SB1365, SB2243, SB2226, SB2039, SB1919, SB1895, SB1598, SB1493, SB1810, SB1791, SB1706, SB1644, SB1238, SB783, SB458, SB22, SB651, SB897, SB1809, SB1080, SB745, SB826, SB989, SB1320, SB1437, SB2320, SB2289, SB1171, SB664, SB1637, SB27, SB29, SB857, SB879, SB922, SB1098, SB1453, SB1536, SB1741, SB2188, SB2230, SB406, SB689, SJR12, SR358, SR361, SR362, SR368, SJR74, SJR76, SB2408, SB2409, SB2461, SB2462, SB2463, SB2464, SB2465, SB2466, SB2467, SB2468, SB2469, SB2470, SB2471, SB2472, SB2473, SB2474, SB2475, SB2476, SB2477, SB2478, SB2479, SB2480, SB2481, SB2482, SB2483, SB2484, SB2485, SB2486, SB2487, SB2488, SB2489, SB2490, SB2491, SB2492, SB2493, SB2494, SB2495, SB2496, SB2497, SB2498, SB2499, SB2500, SB2501, SB2502, SB2503, SB2504, SB2505, SB2506, SB2507, SB2508, SB2509, SB2510, SB2511, SB2512, SB2513, SB2514, SB2515, SB2516, SB2517, SB2518, SB2519, SB2520, SB2521, SB2522, SB2523, SB2524, SB2525, SB2526, SB2527, SB2528, SB2529, SB2530, SB2531, SB2532, SB2533, SB2534, SB2535, SB2536, SB2537, SB2538, SB2539, SB2540, SB2541, SB2542, SB2543, SB2544, SB2545, SB2546, SB2547, SB2548, SB2549, SB2550, SB2551, SB2552, SB2553, SB2554, SB2555, SB2556, SB2557, SB2558, SB2560, SB2561, SB2562, SB2563, SB2565, SB2566, SB2567, SB2568, SB2569, SB2570, SB2571, SB2572, SB2573, SB2574, SB2575, SB2576, SB2577, SB2578, SB2579, SB2580, SB2581, SB2582, SB2583, SB2584, SB2585, SB2586, SB2587, SB2588, SB2589, SB2590, SB2591, SB2592, SB2593, SB2594, SB2595, SB2596, SB2597, SB2598, SB2599, SB2600, SB2601, SB2602, SB2603, SB2604, SB2605, SB2606, SB2607, SB2608, SB2609, SB2610, SB2611, SB2612, SB2613, SB2614, SB2615, SB2616, SB2617, SB2618, SB2619, SB2620, SB2621, SB2622, SB2625, SB2626, SB2627, SB2628, SB2629, SB2630, SB2631, SB2632, SB2633, SB2634, SB2635, SB2636, SB2637, SB2638, SB2639, SB2640, SB2641, SB2642, SB2643, SB2644, SB2645, SB2646, SB2647, SB2648, SB2649, SB2650, SB2651, SB2652, SB2653, SB2654, SB2655, SB2656, SB2657, SB2658, SB2659, SB2660, SB2661, SB2662, SB2663, SB2664, SB2665, SB2666, SB2667, SB2668, SB2669, SB2670, SB2671, SB2672, SB2673, SB2674, SB2675, SB2676, SB2677, SB2678, SB2679, SB2680, SB2681, SB2682, SB2683, SB2684, SB2685, SB2686, SB2687, SB2688, SB2689, SB2690, SB2691, SB2692, SB2693, SB2694, SB2695, SB2696, SB2697, SB2698, SB2699, SB2700, SB2701, SB2702, SB2703, SB2704, SB2705, SB2706, SB2707, SB2708, SB2709, SB2710, SB2711, SB2712, SB2713, SB2714, SB2715, SB2716, SB2717, SB2718, SB2719, SB2720, SB2721, SB2723, SB2724, SB2725, SB2726, SB2727, SB2728, SB2729, SB2730, SB2731, SB2732, SB2733, SB2734, SB2735, SB2736, SB2737, SB2738, SB2739, SB2740, SB2741, SB2742, SB2743, SB2744, SB2745, SB2746, SB2747, SB2748, SB2749, SB2750, SB2751, SB2752, SB2753, SB2754, SB2755, SB2756, SB2757, SB2758, SB2759, SB2760, SB2761, SB2762, SB2763, SB2764, SB2765, SB2766, SB2767, SB2768, SB2769, SB2770, SB2771, SB2772, SB2773, SB2774, SB2775, SB2776, SB2777, SB2778, SB2779, SB2780, SB2781, SB2782, SB2783, SB2784, SB2785, SB2786, SB2787, SB2788, SB2789, SB2790, SB2791, SB2792, SB2793, SB2794, SB2795, SB2796, SB2797, SB2798, SB2799, SB2800, SB2967, SB3034, HJR1, HJR4, HB9, HB 13, HB22, HB135, HB143, HB195, HB908, HB1392, SB861, SB1013, SJR74, SJR76, SB2408, SB2409, SB2461, SB2462, SB2463, SB2464, SB2465, SB2466, SB2467, SB2468, SB2469, SB2470, SB2471, SB2472, SB2473, SB2474, SB2475, SB2476, SB2477, SB2478, SB2479, SB2480, SB2481, SB2482, SB2483, SB2484, SB2485, SB2486, SB2487, SB2488, SB2489, SB2490, SB2491, SB2492, SB2493, SB2494, SB2495, SB2496, SB2497, SB2498, SB2499, SB2500, SB2501, SB2502, SB2503, SB2504, SB2505, SB2506, SB2507, SB2508, SB2509, SB2510, SB2511, SB2512, SB2513, SB2514, SB2515, SB2516, SB2517, SB2518, SB2519, SB2520, SB2521, SB2522, SB2523, SB2524, SB2525, SB2526, SB2527, SB2528, SB2529, SB2530, SB2531, SB2532, SB2533, SB2534, SB2535, SB2536, SB2537, SB2538, SB2539, SB2540, SB2541, SB2542, SB2543, SB2544, SB2545, SB2546, SB2547, SB2548, SB2549, SB2550, SB2551, SB2552, SB2553, SB2554, SB2555, SB2556, SB2557, SB2558, SB2560, SB2561, SB2562, SB2563, SB2565, SB2566, SB2567, SB2568, SB2569, SB2570, SB2571, SB2572, SB2573, SB2574, SB2575, SB2576, SB2577, SB2578, SB2579, SB2580, SB2581, SB2582, SB2583, SB2584, SB2585, SB2586, SB2587, SB2588, SB2589, SB2590, SB2591, SB2592, SB2593, SB2594, SB2595, SB2596, SB2597, SB2598, SB2599, SB2600, SB2601, SB2602, SB2603, SB2604, SB2605, SB2606, SB2607, SB2608, SB2609, SB2610, SB2611, SB2612, SB2613, SB2614, SB2615, SB2616, SB2617, SB2618, SB2619, SB2620, SB2621, SB2622, SB2625, SB2626, SB2627, SB2628, SB2629, SB2630, SB2631, SB2632, SB2633, SB2634, SB2635, SB2636, SB2637, SB2638, SB2639, SB2640, SB2641, SB2642, SB2643, SB2644, SB2645, SB2646, SB2647, SB2648, SB2649, SB2650, SB2651, SB2652, SB2653, SB2654, SB2655, SB2656, SB2657, SB2658, SB2659, SB2660, SB2661, SB2662, SB2663, SB2664, SB2665, SB2666, SB2667, SB2668, SB2669, SB2670, SB2671, SB2672, SB2673, SB2674, SB2675, SB2676, SB2677, SB2678, SB2679, SB2680, SB2681, SB2682, SB2683, SB2684, SB2685, SB2686, SB2687, SB2688, SB2689, SB2690, SB2691, SB2692, SB2693, SB2694, SB2695, SB2696, SB2697, SB2698, SB2699, SB2700, SB2701, SB2702, SB2703, SB2704, SB2705, SB2706, SB2707, SB2708, SB2709, SB2710, SB2711, SB2712, SB2713, SB2714, SB2715, SB2716, SB2717, SB2718, SB2719, SB2720, SB2721, SB2723, SB2724, SB2725, SB2726, SB2727, SB2728, SB2729, SB2730, SB2731, SB2732, SB2733, SB2734, SB2735, SB2736, SB2737, SB2738, SB2739, SB2740, SB2741, SB2742, SB2743, SB2744, SB2745, SB2746, SB2747, SB2748, SB2749, SB2750, SB2751, SB2752, SB2753, SB2754, SB2755, SB2756, SB2757, SB2758, SB2759, SB2760, SB2761, SB2762, SB2763, SB2764, SB2765, SB2766, SB2767, SB2768, SB2769, SB2770, SB2771, SB2772, SB2773, SB2774, SB2775, SB2776, SB2777, SB2778, SB2779, SB2780, SB2781, SB2782, SB2783, SB2784, SB2785, SB2786, SB2787, SB2788, SB2789, SB2790, SB2791, SB2792, SB2793, SB2794, SB2795, SB2796, SB2797, SB2798, SB2799, SB2800, SB2967, SB3034, HJR1, HJR4, HB9, HB 13, HB22, HB135, HB143, HB195, HB908, HB1392, SB861, SB1013

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, border security, southern border, federal immigration policy, illegal immigration, cartels, transnational cartels, fentanyl, drug trafficking, human trafficking, Operation Lone Star, Texas border, National Guard, state guard, border wall, border barriers

Transcript Highlights:

• For employers already using electronic monitoring for performance evaluations, the employer must provide
• As written, the bill's definitions of electronic monitoring and performance evaluations would capture
• I wanted to differentiate potentially for the committee between a performance evaluation and measures
• will be had that could later turn into a performance evaluation.
• will be had that could later turn into a performance evaluation.

Summary: The Labor and Workplace Standards Committee heard testimony on several bills. HB 2303 would prohibit employers from requesting, requiring, or coercing employees to receive subcutaneous microchip implants, with enforcement through L&I complaints, civil penalties, and private lawsuits; the sponsor said it was a preventive labor standard and noted there was no opposition. HB 2144 would require employers to give written notice before using electronic monitoring for employee performance evaluations, and testimony split between labor supporters, who said workers should know how they are monitored, and business, local government, trucking, retail, construction, and law enforcement representatives, who raised concerns about broad definitions, safety uses, and litigation exposure. HB 2190 would expand collective bargaining rights for language access providers so missed or canceled appointments could be bargained as compensation; interpreters and union representatives supported it, saying they lose income when clients no-show, while the sponsor said the bill would clarify bargaining rights without changing employment status. The committee also heard HB 2345, a technical change to the state paid family and medical leave premium split in response to IRS guidance. Staff explained the proposed substitute would shift the employer contribution from the medical share to the family share so benefits would not be treated as taxable wages, while keeping the overall premium burden roughly the same; supporters called it a common-sense fix, and some business and school district witnesses said they wanted to avoid additional taxes and preserve program stability. The most extensive debate was over HB 2191, which would make property owners and direct contractors liable for unpaid wages and benefits in construction projects, with exceptions for government and small residential properties. Workers, unions, the Attorney General’s office, and some contractors supported the bill as a way to combat wage theft and level the playing field, while industry groups and subcontractors argued it would impose broad liability on responsible contractors, raise costs, hurt small businesses and minority-owned firms, and should be narrowed with safe harbors or right-to-cure provisions. No votes were taken; the committee held hearings on the bills and adjourned after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then, students' performance outcomes will improve.
• What's really different here is that we are focusing on process evaluation as well as performance outcomes
• But it has a new evaluation component.
• But it has a new evaluation component.
• Evaluation criteria, the compendium of all the most detailed criteria for evaluation, distinct for each

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> six</c> Of these eight evaluations, six Of these eight evaluations, six evaluations<00:09:38.560
• </c> evaluations were completed. evaluations were completed.
• DNR did not always perform closeout evaluations in accordance with state policy and did not always conduct
• :04:20.560><c> evaluations</c> not always perform closeout evaluations not always perform closeout evaluations
• So, we use the monitoring evaluations so that we are actually looking at the performance during the life

Bills: HF3564

Keywords: Greater Minnesota, regional parks, trails, grants, local government, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> adopted performance-based ratem. adopted performance-based ratem.
• </c> perform. We have a few here um listed. perform. We have a few here um listed.
• </c> to align with performance and outcomes. to align with performance and outcomes.
• </c> performance mechanisms. performance mechanisms.
• </c> evaluate a rebasic. evaluate a rebasic. Okay.<01:16:17.360><c> Right.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee held an informational briefing on the Public Utilities Commission’s performance-based regulation (PBR) framework and the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ whistleblower complaint process. Chair Jared Kohole opened the meeting, noted it was informational only with no public testimony, and explained that members would hear presentations and then have an opportunity for questions. The committee heard first from Ulupono Initiative, which provided background on why utilities are regulated, how Hawaii’s cost-of-service model and rate cases work, and why PBR was adopted to shift utility incentives away from a capital-investment bias and toward performance, efficiency, cost control, and policy goals such as renewable energy and reliability. Ulupono described Hawaii’s PBR structure as a five-year multi-year rate plan with annual revenue adjustments, a customer dividend, a Z factor for extraordinary exogenous events, and an exceptional project recovery mechanism for large projects. It also outlined performance incentive mechanisms tied to renewable portfolio standard progress, interconnection speed, reliability, and shared savings. The presentation said the current docket is evaluating a possible hybrid approach that would combine forward-looking forecasting with historical results, and Ulupono advocated for stronger incentives, arguing the current rewards are too small relative to utility revenues and should be more meaningful to better align utility behavior with legislative intent. The PUC then presented its own overview, emphasizing that the PBR docket is open and active and that the briefing was limited to the record to avoid ex parte concerns. The commission described the development of PBR in Hawaii through multiple phases beginning in 2018: an initial collaborative phase to set goals, a formal contested-case phase that produced the initial framework, later phases adding scorecards, reported metrics, and additional performance incentive mechanisms, and subsequent refinements including sunset of some mechanisms and adjustments after the August 2023 Maui wildfires. The PUC said the framework is intended to be customer-centric, administratively efficient, and protective of utility financial integrity, and that current work includes evaluating how to balance forward-looking and historical test-year approaches within the rebasing process. No votes or formal actions were taken at the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• but requires student performance to make up half of the evaluation and establishes a three-year teacher
• I will share my concern and the reason I went down that road with the performance evaluation - that we
• student performance.
• The weight of the student performance we are placing on actual teachers' performance evaluations.
• You know, student performance. That is the criteria for the teacher evaluations now.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• was the manager for this evaluation.
• I'm with the Office of the Legislative Auditor, and I was the manager for this evaluation.
• </c> throughout the course of our evaluation throughout the course of our evaluation both<00:20:17.919
• Shouldn't we kind of know and evaluate the effects of the cost of these projects?
• We did try and, as we always do in our evaluation, really cast a broad net.

Keywords: 1183, house