Transcript Highlights:

• I don't think this study, for example, it doesn't include this members of the state and local government
• I don't think this study, for example, it doesn't include members of the state and local government committee
• So that's why I'd like to see the study. states. So, that's what I hope that this states.
• be a tremendous benefit for our state. be a tremendous benefit for our state.
• So that's why I'd like to see the study. So that's why I'd like to see the study.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We also want to ensure that states and systems are, as part of this study, that we identified and addressed
• that a state might undertake on its higher education funding formula. two-decades study that a state
• Not that many states do really in-depth studies of their higher education funding approaches, models,
• In fact, New Mexico is joining only two other states in using the approach that we're using in this study
• Chair, you know, the University of Wyoming State University had a study that looked at regent systems

Transcript Highlights:

• the state that needs them?
• Teachers' salaries were low, especially as compared to other states, surrounding states.
• The adequacy study.
• The adequacy study.
• And it is studied each biennium throughout this study.

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the previous minutes and then focused on an update from the Department of Education on early childhood programs, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ongoing work to review ABC slots, which have been flat for years at about 23,800 slots and roughly $114 million. They said about 1,000 slots statewide are currently unfilled despite a waiting list of more than 2,000 families, and the department is shifting toward paying based on enrollment rather than guaranteed slots. Members asked about school choice, income eligibility, year-round access, curriculum flexibility, transportation, and whether funding should be increased or rebalanced; the department said it is collecting data, may survey providers more formally, and is considering whether to modernize income thresholds, daily rates, and other program rules. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical information on income limits and other program details. The second major portion of the meeting was a legal presentation on the framework for Arkansas school adequacy by BLR education attorney Taylor Lloyd. She reviewed the constitutional basis for a “general, suitable, and efficient” public school system, the Dupree and Lake View cases, and the principle that adequacy and equity are different but related: adequacy asks what resources are needed, while equity asks whether those resources are distributed fairly. She explained that the General Assembly must define adequacy, study it, and react to evidence over time, and that the current adequacy definition includes curriculum and career/technical frameworks, the 38 mandatory Carnegie units, state testing standards, and sufficient funding. She also described the matrix as a funding tool, not a spending mandate, and noted that categorical funds are separate from the matrix. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum then gave the historical framework, tracing legislative responses from Dupree through Lake View and into the present. She highlighted major changes such as the creation of equalization funding, fiscal distress and academic distress laws, the adequacy study process, the Educational Adequacy Fund, facilities and transportation changes, declining enrollment and student growth funding, and later adjustments to teacher salaries, isolated funding, and categorical programs. She explained that the adequacy study has evolved through committee hearings, surveys, site visits, and outside consultants, and that recent changes include updates to accountability references and the addition or removal of certain funding categories. Members asked follow-up questions about how the matrix is used, whether homeschool or private-school funding raises comparable issues, whether stakeholders include private and homeschool participants, whether school board members should be surveyed, and whether the state should revisit average daily membership versus attendance-based funding. No votes were taken on the adequacy presentations, but the committee did agree to continue the early childhood discussion in a future subcommittee meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• And unlike the previous studies you've just heard, we are at the beginning phase of this study.
• And unlike the previous studies you've just heard, we are at the beginning phase of the study, so we
• Our study mandate uses the term farm worker, and we found that this term is not defined in state law.
• Next, I'll turn the presentation over to Hope to talk about the study scope and our study questions.
• Is this really a farm worker study, or is it an agricultural worker study?

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee met on September 17, 2025, in hybrid format. After roll call, the committee initially lacked a quorum and deferred approval of the July 15 minutes until Representative Berg arrived; the minutes were then adopted. Members also discussed the proposed 2026 JLARC meeting schedule, including possible changes to address crowded July meetings and the annual tax exemption review workload. Staff presented the annual lodging tax expenditures report, noting that 213 municipalities received distributions in 2024, with 91% reporting compliance, $114 million awarded for more than 1,700 activities, and no independent verification of the self-reported data. Several members questioned the value and usefulness of the report, and the executive committee indicated it may recommend removing the statutory reporting requirement. The committee then heard the preliminary performance audit of the Office of Privacy and Data Protection, which found the office meets its statutory responsibilities and has high user satisfaction, but recommended updating the statute to better match the office’s current capacity and focus and improving performance measures to reflect long-term privacy outcomes rather than outputs. Members asked about FERPA and other federal privacy laws, and OPDP staff said they provide general privacy training and consultation but not law-specific training unless requested. The committee adopted the final report on Washington State recreational boating programs without recommendation, after staff reported that boating revenues support both general government and boating activities and that no participating agencies submitted formal comments. Members asked about boater safety education and possible overlap among the six agencies involved; Parks staff said education has reached more than 500,000 boaters and that fatalities and incidents have declined. The committee also reviewed planned study questions for a JLARC review of Labor and Industries’ enforcement of farm worker laws, with members raising scope questions about the term “farm worker” versus “agricultural worker,” and for DNR’s Eastern Washington sustainable harvest calculation, which JLARC will review as DNR completes its recalculation. Finally, staff outlined the 2026 tax preference performance reviews covering seven preferences, and members asked about racial equity, environmental impacts, disclosure of beneficiary savings, and how the reviews will measure effectiveness; the meeting adjourned before noon.

Transcript Highlights:

• the State Treasurer.
• Now, kind of looking at the State Investment Board and State Treasurer, they have some duties related
• So the State Investment Board The State Investment Board is responsible for investing the funds in the
• The other thing is we've stated—you stated this before—a seven-year smoothing period.
• State Actuary's Office, or technically one for the State Actuary's Office, one where the State Actuary's

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy approved its minutes by roll call vote, then postponed an OSA annual update due to a family emergency. The committee received an Open Public Meetings Act refresher from Assistant Attorney General Kate Adams, who reviewed key compliance points including quorum and serial meetings, notice and agenda rules, executive session limits, public comment requirements, and the consequences of violations. She also noted a litigation hold notice sent to members and provided resources for further guidance. Staff then briefed the committee on E2 Second Substitute House Bill 2034, which restates and terminates LEOFF 1 on June 30, 2029, creates a restated LEOFF 1 funded by transferred assets, and places excess assets into a pension surplus holding account that could later be used by the state. The bill requires DRS to seek IRS guidance, directs OSA to calculate the transfer amount and assess any future unfunded liability, assigns implementation duties to DRS, OSA, the Pension Funding Council, the State Investment Board, and the Treasurer, and requires two SCPP studies on LEOFF 1 medical benefits and policy oversight. OSA’s actuary estimated the transfer to the surplus holding account at about $3.9 billion under current assumptions and said the bill increases the modeled chance of future state contributions if the restated plan falls below 100% funded; members asked about IRS timing, the 2029 transfer date, and whether the 110% buffer is sufficient. The committee also received an update on the LEOFF 1 medical benefits study required by the bill. Staff said the study will examine the administration of pension boards and medical liabilities, likely focusing on medical benefits, and will gather anonymized data from local boards, cities, counties, and related agencies over the next three years. Members and public commenters discussed the number and structure of local boards, whether spouses receive medical benefits, and the possibility of regionalizing or consolidating administration. No action was taken, but staff said they would return with milestones and further updates. Finally, staff outlined a possible Plan 3 study, prompted by DRS, to evaluate whether the original goals of Plan 3 have been met after 30 years. The proposed study would review historical context, member choice outcomes, policy questions, and possible recommendations over a two-year period. The committee also heard an update on new correspondence procedures, including a new online web form, a correspondence log in meeting packets, and removal of correspondence from the public website. During public comment, retiree groups urged the committee to pursue an ongoing COLA for PERS and TRS Plan 1, with interim ad hoc COLAs until then, while LEOFF 1 retirees urged caution about changing the current board structure and emphasized the complexity of medical benefit administration.

Transcript Highlights:

• the study.
• do this study? do this study?
• than these other states? than these other states?
• . state. state.
• state of Minnesota. state of Minnesota.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• A study of how this service should be provided in a way that provides revenues to the state government
• While framed as a study, the clear trajectory of this proposal is to position the state as a significant
• will be available to help the state evaluate well, given that, should we, This study will be available
• And we've studied it and we think it's a good idea for the state to try to either own PNM or a portion
• What this memorial is studying is a direct investment, similar to what the United States is now doing

Bills: HB303, SB96, HM6

Keywords: public utility, certificate of public convenience and necessity, certificate of need, Public Regulation Commission, PRC, utility regulation, ratemaking, energy storage, battery storage, grid reliability, renewable energy, transmission, distribution, generation plant, utility expansion, service territory, mutual domestic water consumer association, economic development department, clean energy, fossil fuel reduction

Transcript Highlights:

• communities across the state.
• study.
• The purpose of this study is to understand the current gap between city and state investment in city
• The study provides information for decision makers. It does not commit the state to pursuing a P3.
• The study provides information for decision makers. It does not commit the state to pursuing a P3.

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:

• communities across the state.
• study.
• The purpose of this study is to understand the current gap between city and state investment in city
• The study provides information for decision makers. It does not commit the state to pursuing a P3.
• The study provides information for decision makers. It does not commit the state to pursuing a P3.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:47.000> are guidelines and the states are guidelines and the states are responsible
• million children that live in the state million children that live in the state of<00:04:07.239>
• we met with providers legislators State we met with providers legislators State staff<00:12:26.480
• time where we were doing the rate study time where we were doing the rate study there<00:13:52.079
• The FMAP for every state is different. Some states are getting the 50%.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Health and Family Services met with a quorum still coming together and first handled roll call and minutes. The main presentation came from the Department for Medicaid Services, with Commissioner Lisa Lee and CFO Steve Beckle giving an overview of Kentucky Medicaid, its federal-state financing structure, and the department’s 1915(c) home- and community-based waiver programs. They explained FMAP funding levels for traditional Medicaid, administration, IT, expansion adults, and CHIP, and noted the size of the program, including more than 600,000 Kentucky children eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, about 485,000 expansion adults, over 69,000 enrolled providers, and $18.5 billion in 2024 expenditures. A major focus was the waiver system, including the acquired brain injury waivers, model waiver, independence waiver, Michelle P. waiver, and Supports for Community Living waiver. The department said these waivers are intended to keep people with physical or developmental disabilities in home and community settings rather than facilities, and that many services are not covered by Medicare or commercial insurance. Officials described participant-directed services, interagency administration, and eligibility rules, including that some waiver programs use the child’s income only rather than family income. They also reported an unduplicated waiver wait list of 13,930 people and said the General Assembly had added waiver slots in the last budget, including 650 ABI slots and 1,275 more to be allocated July 1, 2025. The department also discussed a waiver rate study conducted by Guidehouse, explaining that CMS requires a defensible rate methodology because there is no Medicare or commercial benchmark for many waiver services. They said the study used cost and wage surveys, provider and stakeholder input, and aimed to improve transparency, provider stability, and rate parity. Officials reviewed prior COVID-era Appendix K rate increases and budget-driven increases, and said the budget ultimately funded rates at about 70% of the benchmark study, while preserving higher existing rates where needed so no provider would be cut. They highlighted larger differences in behavioral support and case management rates, and said a public report is available. Members asked several questions about the potential impact of federal FMAP changes, especially possible reductions in the enhanced match for expansion adults and Medicaid IT/admin activities. DMS said any FMAP reduction would require more state general fund dollars, estimating about $75 million for each 1% drop in the expansion match, while impacts on administrative IT funding would depend on the systems being built or implemented in a given year. Members also pressed for clarification on waiver wait-list procedures, funded versus filled slots, and what happens when someone on the wait list is later found ineligible. DMS said people on the wait list may not yet have been assessed, can be reevaluated if conditions change, and are still eligible for regular Medicaid state-plan services if they qualify, even if they are waiting for waiver services.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:42:01.040> education, social studies education, social studies education, teaching<00:
• We also have a social studies curriculum We also have a social studies curriculum leader<00:45:51.599
• Ethnic studies work in 2014 included the ethnic studies working group in gathering and incorporating
• um with the social studies standards. um with the social studies standards.
• the social studies. the social studies.

Bills: HF3489, HF3550

Keywords: grooming, child protection, student safety, sexual exploitation, educator licensing, teacher discipline, mandatory reporting, mandated reporter training, school misconduct, predatory offender, child abuse, sexual abuse, sex trafficking, child sexual abuse material, child pornography, position of authority, school employee, school administrator, license revocation, license suspension

Transcript Highlights:

• There weren't a lot of studies when I was a kid, but the best studies—and really the only studies out
• These are studies from Scotland, Sweden, the UK, Australia, and the United States—multiple studies.
• And over time, the scientific community studied and studied and studied and found that it was wrong.
• The state has a partnership with the state.
• studies, studies of the vaccine safety data link.

Transcript Highlights:

• the day the study was conducted.
• Uh, so, obviously, we have to perform the studies, get those studies approved by the entities that require
• That mud may have already done traffic studies.
• OK, now when you do this traffic study.
• Many agencies, including cities, counties, and the state have established traffic impact study guidelines

Transcript Highlights:

• By having the state conduct these studies in detail.
• If we're going to pause, now's the time to pause and get the state to do this study. Okay.
• It would be state-derived information and studies, which, in my mind, has always been available to the
• I want to have a study; let's have a study.
• Senator Nichols, just real quick, I don't know— I should know— is the state going to pay for the studies

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, for the $750,000 that was outlined in this $1.5 million, I believe State of Hawaiʻi had several studies
• between the federal and the state code of federal rules as well as the state laws.
• So really studying the different states that have the programs and what their benefit duration is and
• > different<00:26:32.880> states So really studying the different states So really studying
• Please state your name for Thank you. Please state your name for the<00:33:09.039> record.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And that is the actuarial study—the left one study plan in the House. A lot of us didn't...
• one study plan...
• With the actuarial study of the left one study plan. Mr.
• As a member of the State Investment Board, along with Director Leathers, I can say that the State Investment
• Some of them are thinking COLA in terms of the study that we have, but COLA is not included in that study

Summary: The committee approved the May minutes by roll call vote and then received brief updates from the Attorney General’s office and the Office of the State Actuary. The AG’s office said it would handle legal analysis related to the committee’s work, while the actuary reported that staff were at capacity this summer due to annual valuation work, experience studies, and other retirement system projects, but would have more capacity in the fall. Members also requested access to fiscal note and actuarial materials related to the LEOFF 1 study and related legislation. The main discussion focused on the LEOFF 1 study, including actuarial funding, a proposed merger/termination/restatement approach, and the possibility of a permanent COLA for Plan 1 members. Several members supported keeping COLA recommendations in the committee’s work, while others raised concerns about whether merging or restating plans could affect benefits, legal status, or IRS tax treatment. The actuary explained that the temporary pause in certain funding rates reflected prior overfunding buffers and assumptions about future investment returns, and said future base-rate funding could still be needed depending on experience. Members also discussed constituent correspondence, which staff said largely fell into four categories: the LEOFF 1 study, Plan 1 benefits and COLAs, fossil fuel divestment, and ESSB 5357. The committee agreed that divestment concerns are more appropriately directed to the State Investment Board, not this committee. In reviewing the draft interim work plan, members added or adjusted several topics for future meetings, including a July educational briefing on LEOFF 1 history and tax/IRS issues, a September discussion of COLAs, and a December placeholder for excess compensation/pension spiking, pending coordination with the LEOFF 2 Board. The committee then approved the July agenda and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So to look a little bit more closely at the two SCPP studies, the first one is a study of LEOFF 1 pension
• The study must consider which state agency could assume responsibility for pension board administration
• talked about, some mandated studies.
• But as a friendly reminder, we do have two OSA— the State Actuary's Office independently has two studies
• But you have your study of LEOFF 1 medical.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy approved the November minutes by roll call vote, then held its annual officer elections. Senator Conway was elected chair, Representative Couture vice chair, Mike Yastramski to the executive committee as the active member representative, Bev Hermanson as the retiree representative, and Anthony Marietta as the employer representative. Each election passed by roll call vote, with 14 yes votes and 5 excused members. Staff then presented a high-level overview of the 2026 legislative session, focusing on pension-related bills and studies. Topics included the termination and restatement of LEOFF 1 in Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2034, DRS administration changes in House Bill 2124, administrative expense authority in Substitute Senate Bill 5834, exclusion of certain port workers from PERS in Engrossed House Bill 2179, and a one-time 3% COLA for PERS and TERS Plan 1 retirees in Substitute Senate Bill 5862. The presentation also covered new studies directed to the committee, including LEOFF 1 pension board and medical liability issues and oversight of the restated LEOFF 1 plan, plus related studies assigned to the LEOFF 2 Board and the Office of the State Actuary. Committee members asked about DRS’s role in implementing the LEOFF 1 termination/restatement bill, and DRS said it would help seek IRS approval and notify members about the bill and any challenge deadlines. A separate orientation presentation reviewed committee procedures, public comment, staff roles, voting rules, and the interim work plan. Public commenters from retiree and school administrator groups urged the committee to pursue another one-time COLA and to consider an ongoing COLA for Plan 1 retirees, pointing to inflation and the LEOFF 1 surplus account created by HB 2034. No further committee action was taken beyond adjournment, and the meeting ended after scheduling the executive committee to meet later that morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• study, and the Rearden study.
• > um<00:20:05.840> that abortion study the Coleman study um that abortion study the Coleman
• study and and and the rearen study both study and and and the rearen study both of<00:20:09.600> them
• As we've already stated, the studies cited in this bill to support the claim that the majority of women
• of studies. of studies.

Bills: HB0117, HB0126

Keywords: informed consent, abortion, civil liability, coercion, healthcare rights, fetal heartbeat, termination of pregnancy, medical emergency, Wyoming legislation, rights of minors, healthcare regulations, parental consent, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I present to you SB 1305, a study bill that takes important steps by having the state assess the feasibility
• Why should the state focus on this and fund a study to bring another apex predator in?
• Because that study does not authorize or give the state the opportunity to then take those words and
• Because that study does not authorize or give the state the opportunity to then take those words and
• The bill does state that the study would not go forward unless it was appropriated. The study.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• state to create those merger study state to create those merger study committees. committees. committees
• statute, as well as suggested state statute, as well as suggested merger<00:05:23.840> study<
• H. 955 calls for school districts in all parts of the state to form merger study committees based on
• H. 955 calls for school districts in all parts of the state to form merger study committees based on
• H. 955 calls for school districts in all parts of the state to form merger study committees based on

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The meeting was a caucus of the whole on House Bill 955, described by House Education Chair Rep. Peter Conlin as the year’s education transformation bill. He said the bill is still evolving and must still go through Ways and Means, Appropriations, and the Senate. Conlin framed the bill as a response to declining enrollment, school building needs, future funding changes, and equity concerns, drawing on prior commission work, testimony, surveys, emails, and committee input. Conlin said H. 955 has two major structural pieces: it creates seven mandatory Cooperative Education Service Areas (CESAs) to provide shared services more efficiently at larger scale, and it requires merger study committees in all parts of the state to examine whether districts should voluntarily merge into pre-K through 12 union school districts. He emphasized that CESAs are service providers, not governing bodies, and that merger study committees are required to study merger but not to merge. He also said the bill includes startup grants for CESAs, fee-for-service funding, a guidance map for facilitator work, deadlines culminating in merger votes on November 7, 2028, and reporting requirements back to the General Assembly. Members asked about whether CESAs duplicate supervisory unions, how representation would work, whether the bill affects academic standards, what happens to articles of agreement, why some study groupings include only one district, how the process would work in practice, and what support facilitators would have. Conlin responded that CESAs are intended to add scale for specialized services rather than replace supervisory unions, that they do not govern schools, and that representation and structure could be adjusted as the bill moves forward. He said the bill does not change what is taught in schools, only governance and funding, and that any merger would still require new articles of agreement and voter approval. He also said the facilitator system would be supported by a lead facilitator and the existing CESA structure, and that some groupings may be revised based on local conditions. The committee also discussed cost savings and timing. Conlin said the bill is intended to reduce costs through shared services and larger-scale districts, and that the proposed delay in implementing a foundation formula is meant to allow time for mergers and related administrative work, including bargaining, records, and district consolidation. He cited the existing Vermont Learning Collaborative in southeastern Vermont as an example of a CESA already providing specialized services and saving member districts money.