Transcript Highlights:

• They would pay $1 million in SWP.
• </c><00:54:45.640><c> a</c> pre-implementation they were paying a pre-implementation they were paying
• </c> in Canada the federal government pays in Canada the federal government pays for<01:20:56.840><c>
• </c><03:28:00.399><c> minister</c> 1758 to pay pay for hiring a minister 1758 to pay pay for hiring a
• No, I'm not talking about the pay.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a work session focused on school funding formulas, adequacy aid, and special education aid, with the chair outlining a schedule for the next several Tuesdays and noting that the committee would likely need multiple executive sessions to narrow down the bills. Members discussed the FY 26 formula, including base cost, differentiated aid, extraordinary needs grants, hold harmless provisions, and the roughly $28 million in excess statewide education property tax (SWP) funds that are not currently returned to the state under the existing formula. The first bill discussed was HB 137, which would allow excess SWP funds to remain with the local municipality for school and municipal purposes. Representative Spilsbury argued the issue is fundamental and suggested the state should require excess funds to be remitted back to the state, while Representative Damon said the bill appears to codify current practice and may be unnecessary, especially given possible court action. The discussion then shifted to a related bill from Representative Fellas that would redefine SWP as local money rather than state money and keep the current adequacy aid numbers revenue-neutral for now. Representative Fellas explained that SWP was created in 1999 after the Claremont lawsuit as part of the state’s effort to show increased school aid, but that it effectively labeled part of the local property tax as state money without changing property tax bills. She argued the state should not be tapping local property tax revenue and said her bill would preserve the current distribution while removing the SWP tax label, with future work possible on a different measure of local capacity such as income, home values, or poverty rate. Members also referenced prior discussions of fiscal capacity aid, relief aid, and other formula changes as part of the broader effort to restructure school funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• But remember, this bill doesn't touch the reserves needed to pay claims and manage risk.
• the premium tax would no longer be exempt from paying the B&O tax.
• This is a real reduction in pay for workers who already run on narrow margins.
• This is a real reduction in pay for workers who already operate on narrow margins.
• If someone enrolls in a community college and pays tuition, that's correct.

Bills: SB5808, HB2254, HB2385, SB6006, SB6351, SB6198, SB6260, SB6353, SB5949, SB6129, SB6228, SB6231, SB6229, SB6173

Keywords: health insurance, premium assistance, funding, healthcare access, state budget, HB 2254, Washington, Health Care Authority, partnership access line, psychiatric consultation line, first approach skills training, behavioral health, mental health, assessment, administrative costs, health carriers, self-funded plans, multiple employer welfare arrangement, MEWA, employers

Transcript Highlights:

• Who doesn't want to pay six cents a kilowatt?
• They're just going to keep paying that.
• They're just going to keep paying that.
• Where is the General Fund amount that was in there last year that is paying for what we're paying for
• We as taxpayers have to pay for that. So we as taxpayers have to pay for that.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard opening remarks on the Governor’s 2026-27 budget and presentations from the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Chair Laird described the proposal as roughly balanced with $23 billion in reserves, while Vice Chair Niello argued the revenue estimates were overly optimistic and warned of a structural deficit, calling for a deeper review of programs and concern over the state’s $20 billion unemployment insurance debt. Finance said the budget is balanced in the budget year but still leaves a roughly $2.9 billion deficit, with out-year gaps above $20 billion, and characterized the plan as largely a workload budget with limited new spending or cuts. The LAO said its office sees substantial downside risk to the revenue forecast, emphasized the volatility of stock-market-driven revenues, and urged the Legislature to begin addressing the structural deficit now rather than waiting until May. Members focused on the implications of federal policy changes, Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and the MCO tax, as well as the state’s reserve strategy. Senators Menjivar and Richardson raised concerns about health coverage reductions, county costs, hospital finances, and the lack of a broader revenue solution, while Finance said the state cannot fully backfill federal cuts and is still assessing the impacts. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposal to suspend the rainy day fund deposit and setting aside the proposed Proposition 98 settle-up rather than using it for spending. Finance defended both proposals as necessary to balance the budget year and said it plans to begin discussions with legislative leaders before the May Revision. The committee also discussed climate and transportation funding, including cap-and-trade/GGRF allocations for Cal Fire, interest earnings from the fund, zero-emission vehicle incentives, and AB 617 air quality investments. Senator Reyes questioned the focus on light-duty ZEV incentives instead of heavy-duty vehicles, and Finance said the proposal is intended to partially replace the federal consumer tax credit and that some heavy-duty funding remains from prior years. Senator Richardson also raised concerns about Olympics-related infrastructure, courthouse repairs, and displaced workers, while other members stressed homelessness funding and the need for more immediate action on out-year budget problems. No formal votes or actions were taken during the portion provided; the hearing was informational and moved into member questions after the presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, and they're already paying for that.
• ; if the state was wrong, the state pays?
• The state pays.
• The state would only pay right now as things stand the state would only pay for the state created test
• So the state would only pay for the state created test. They pay for those tests. Okay, thank you.

Bills: HB8, HB12, SB 3, HJR1, SB 11, SB 16, SB 14

Keywords: HB 8, Texas public school accountability, school accountability, public school transparency, STAAR, state assessments, instructionally supportive assessment program, Student Success Tool, Texas Education Agency, TEA, accountability ratings, A-F ratings, through-year assessment, benchmark testing, norm-referenced assessment, college career military readiness, CCMR, local accountability plan, school district performance, campus turnaround

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:09:17.760><c> off</c> those that were allocated to pay off those that were allocated to pay off
• </c> to our system by uh um leasing paying to our system by uh um leasing paying sub<01:18:57.920><c>
• </c><01:22:10.800><c> it</c> at paying off the debt, just paying it at paying off the debt, just paying
• They're still paying. They'll be paying for another 10 years.
• They're still paying. They'll be paying for another 10 years.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee began its first meeting on retained education funding bills, focusing on HB 366, which concerns school building aid for eligible projects, and HB 295, which would make school building aid program funds non-lapsing. The chair framed the discussion around broader questions about how school building aid should work, noting the state’s limited available funding, the existing debt service obligations, and whether the current formula should continue or be changed. He also raised concerns about the state’s overall revenue constraints and the need to consider renovation, new construction, and possibly leasing within any future program. Members and the Department of Education representative discussed whether school building aid is a state or local responsibility, the current backlog of projects, and the condition of school facilities statewide. Tim Carney of the Bureau of School Facilities described his background and answered technical questions about current programs. Representative Luno argued that under the ConVal decision the state has responsibility for school buildings, including construction and renovation, and that the program also serves an equity function by helping districts with less property-tax capacity. Representative Papich urged the committee to focus on policy structure and fairness rather than just available dollars, saying the current system creates winners and losers and suggesting a simpler per-capita or similar allocation model, while acknowledging a possible transition for projects already in the pipeline. The discussion also covered CTE facilities and leasing. Carney explained that charter schools, and possibly CTE centers, can receive limited leasing aid, and that CTE capital requests are funded through a state capital process, while federal Carl Perkins funds cannot be used for construction. He and others described a separate rotational funding approach for CTE centers, but several members said that model can leave programs waiting too long and may not match changing workforce needs. The chair and others noted that a report from a related study group on CTE policy and funding was still pending, and that its absence could affect legislation for FY28. No votes were taken and no bill was acted on in the portion of the meeting provided; the discussion ended with interest in modeling alternatives, reviewing the waiting list, and examining the tradeoffs of reducing upfront state aid versus funding more projects overall.

Transcript Highlights:

• All they have to do is go back and pay the claim that they would have had to pay to begin with.
• All this bill does is it says if they're paying, they don't have to stop paying.
• And if they stop paying, then you force the suit, and then the employer's out.
• This allows them to keep paying without denying benefits.
• And the other option is if they stop paying, then they're in the exact same boat.

Bills: SR145, SR146, SR147, SR148, SCR78, SCR12, HB302, HB221, HCR58, HB59, HB89, HB153, HB243, HB335, HB342, HB350, HB407, HB451, HB513, HB595, HB682, HB688, HB690, HB730, HB762, HB802, HB816, HB940, HB944, HB1003, HB1011, HB1029, HB1053, HB1058, HB1062, HB1064, HB1079, HB1084, HB1098, HB1161, HB1189, HB1203, HB1215, HB1247, HB1248, HB1251, HB1253, HB1257, HB1258, SCR3, SB393, SB401, SB415, SB426, SB435, SB487, SB488, SB523, SB56, SB163, SB341, SB504, SB322, SR125, SCR54, SCR59, SCR9, SCR58, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, SB514, HCR27, HCR28, HCR66, HCR67, HCR72, HCR5, HCR32, HCR49, HCR50, HCR53, HCR60, HCR62, HCR64, HCR68, HCR78, HCR81, HCR86, HCR97, HCR102, HCR31, HCR47, HCR3, HB1095, HB1096, HB1103, HB1129, HB1154, HB1166, HB1195, HB1230, HB316, HB511, HB799, HB1039, HB12, HB66, HB145, HB167, HB196, HB213, HB218, HB222, HB256, HB291, HB326, HB352, HB401, HB430, HB433, HB434, HB448, HB456, HB476, HB481, HB487, HB492, HB549, HB579, HB608, HB621, HB624, HB626, HB632, HB637, HB656, HB722, HB745, HB804, HB818, HB821, HB833, HB864, HB867, HB874, HB893, HB909, HB951, HB968, HB969, HB978, HB979, HB988, HB989, HB1001, HB1005, HB1007, HB1024, HB1032, HB1038, HB1050, HB1051, HB1056, HB1059, HB1077, HB1080, HB1081, HB1086, HB1108, HB1112, HB1153, HB1172, HB1173, HB1175, HB1192, HB1193, HB1204, HB1218, HB1242, HB1244, HB1249, HB1252, HB1254, HB1, HB2, HB3, HB42, HB45, HB71, HB79, HB158, HB160, HB169, HB227, HB251, HB289, HB312, HB313, HB314, HB330, HB383, HB394, HB410, HB429, HB769, HB971, HB983, HB1017, HB1126, HB1234, HB1235, HB17, HB27, HB36, HB41, HB47, HB73, HB126, HB133, HB140, HB159, HB166, HB205, HB211, HB226, HB259, HB271, HB308, HB310, HB324, HB337, HB351, HB399, HB403, HB571, HB712, HB723, HB726, HB740, HB750, HB759, HB812, HB844, HB966, HB1006, HB1009, HB1018, HB1036, HB1107, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB78, SB208, SB217, SB274, SB300, SB379, SB382, SB387, SB441, SB449, HB74, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB468, HB956, HB1117, SB149

Keywords: critical infrastructure, foreign adversaries, homeland security, task force, Louisiana Senate, military bases, oil and gas, refining facilities, energy generation, industrial manufacturing, agriculture, food supply, biosecurity, agroterrorism, Chinese Communist Party, People's Republic of China, Russia, Russian government, FBI, Secret Service

Transcript Highlights:

• , you'd be paying daily storage charges.
• , you'd be paying daily storage charges.
• And again, this one drops to 75, so people pay it at that point.
• Their equipment, they pay, they charge us a fee.
• It's not for all of us to pay for this.

Bills: SB1010, SB1024, SB1205, SB1232, SB1366, SB1552, SB1624, SCM1002, SCM1006, SCR1004

Keywords: Charlie Kirk, Loop 202, Arizona highways, transportation, renaming, roadable aircraft, registration, vehicle title, license plates, aviation safety, motor vehicle booting, private property, fees, dispute process, regulations, outdoor advertising, military compatibility, zoning, electronic signage, permitting

Transcript Highlights:

• And the county pays for that.
• And the county pays for that.
• I'm just wondering how much the county had to pay.
• So this is not going to be the same rate that we just pay when we have to pay to restore somebody.
• We do not have the resources to pay for this long term.

Bills: HB2050, HB2082, HB2176, HB2195, HB2202, HB2307, HB2584

Keywords: radiologic technologist, radiologist assistant, radiology, imaging, x-ray, diagnostic x-ray, fluoroscopy, mammography, computed tomography, CT technologist, nuclear medicine technologist, bone densitometry, radiation safety, radiation licensing, scope of practice, health workforce, rural health care, critical access hospital, supervision, telehealth

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> drivers report that overall their pay drivers report that overall their pay and<00:02:18.879><c>
• <00:15:48.880><c> trouble</c><00:15:49.199><c> with</c><00:15:49.440><c> pay.
• </c><00:15:50.160><c> We've</c><00:15:50.399><c> had</c> pay trouble with pay.
• We've had pay trouble with pay.
• Thank you. improvements, as was mentioned, paying improvements, as was mentioned, paying benefits.<00

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving on to the prospective pay.
• Can't that same person that we're paying for also do that as well, not pay for a contractor?
• Can't that same person that we're paying for also do that as well, not pay for a contractor?
• Pay for a contractor, but this is requesting...
• Adopting a prospective pay model will pay providers before care is delivered, just as private-pay families

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And who's paying those?
• And who's paying those?
• And who's paying those?
• And who's paying those?
• Is the city paying for a portion? Do it? Is the city paying for a portion?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 2025 pay, so last year, this upcoming year.
• 2025 pay, so last year, this upcoming year.
• </c><00:09:00.240><c> 2025</c> left um column you'll see pay 2025 left um column you'll see pay 2025
• </c> the second column is the Baseline pay the second column is the Baseline pay for<00:09:10.920><c>
• </c> the change between that Baseline pay the change between that Baseline pay again<00:09:33.959><c>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• before their plan pays for covered services, with limited exceptions for free preventive care.
• Most pay between $35 and $45 for a specialist visit, and some pay up to $60 or more for a visit.
• an additional co-pay for antibiotics.
• Today I will share stories of families who cannot afford those co-pays currently.
• Some months co-pays hit $6,000.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee met on January 13, 2026, and heard several two-year bills, with AB 634 (Gonzalez) and AB 298 (Bonta) receiving the most discussion. The chair also announced consent items AB 96 (Jackson), AB 1126 (Patterson), and AB 1366 (Flora), all with motions to do pass to Appropriations. Committee procedures, witness limits, and conduct rules were reviewed at the start of the hearing. AB 634 would prohibit the manufacture, distribution, or sale of tianeptine in California. Assembly Member Gonzalez described the drug as a dangerous substance sold in retail settings and said the bill had been amended to shift penalties from criminal to civil, narrow its scope so employees without authority over sales would not be targeted, allow cost recovery, and avoid a Commerce Clause issue. The California Narcotic Officers Association supported the bill, and there was no recorded opposition. The committee voted the bill out on a do pass to Judiciary motion. AB 298 would eliminate out-of-pocket costs for children’s health care services in large group commercial plans. Bonta argued that deductibles, copays, and coinsurance deter care and create financial strain for families, while noting the bill would not change provider reimbursement and that he would pursue cost-saving amendments in Appropriations, especially for CalPERS. Support came from Health Access California, Family Voices of California, and several medical and pediatric organizations, while the Chamber of Commerce and health plan groups opposed it, warning of premium increases and possible employer shifts to self-insured coverage. The committee advanced the bill on a do pass to Appropriations vote, and the chair later noted the bill was on call before final add-on votes were completed. The consent calendar items were also approved, and the hearing adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• They are to pay for retiree health. They are to pay for retiree health.
• So they still do pay.
• We did not pay them.
• They are required to pay, so we do get the collections, and they do pay like everyone does pay.
• </c><02:50:45.840><c> the</c> and it's something like paying the and it's something like paying the co-pay

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Department of Administrative Services presented an overview of its budget and operations, emphasizing that it is the lowest-spending agency in state government and that its general fund allocation has declined since 2019. Commissioner Arling House explained that DAS also handles back-office functions for several administratively attached boards, which has affected staffing and spending comparisons. He said the department’s current general fund spending is roughly split between retiree health and other operations, and that the presentation was based on adjusted authorized spending rather than the original budget figures. A major portion of the meeting focused on retiree health benefits and the long-term effort to control costs. Deputy Commissioner Cassie Keane described how the state moved from a projected deficit in retiree health to savings through a series of changes, including higher premium contributions, co-pay adjustments, and shifting Medicare retirees into Medicare Advantage arrangements to capture federal reimbursement. She said the state has about 12,500 retirees and spouses on the plan, with roughly 10,906 Medicare retirees and 1,580 non-Medicare retirees, and that the savings have depended heavily on federal funding and procurement decisions. She also noted that Medicare retirees pay Part B premiums and that the state has grandfathered older retirees from some premium contributions. Members asked about what the expenditures cover, why the state offers retiree health instead of simply giving retirees a payment to buy coverage themselves, and whether out-of-pocket costs changed under Medicare Advantage. Keane said the plan covers actual health claims or insurance premiums, that co-pays and maximum out-of-pocket limits remain in place, and that the state has no authority to change benefit details without legislative action. She explained that retiree health is a long-standing employee benefit that wraps around Medicare and is not collectively bargained in the usual sense, though its eligibility rules and cost-sharing have been tightened over time to better target the benefit to long-term state service. The discussion also covered vendor performance problems. Keane said Anthem recently won the contract back from Aetna, but its pharmacy subsidiary, Caroline, caused serious service disruptions. DAS responded by withholding payments, assessing more than $2 million in performance guarantees, and hiring a third-party auditor to review the pharmacy processes. The current contract runs through the end of calendar year 2026, and officials said they are watching federal Medicare Advantage reimbursement changes closely because future savings are uncertain.

Transcript Highlights:

• He knew it would be a pay cut.
• So, okay, so in fairness, we pay up to 10 students. We pay per student.
• And the key is that the college is paying the instructor.
• Everybody pays the same, or subsidized, unsubsidized.
• Several years ago, the state stopped paying for that.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• He knew it would be a pay cut.
• So, okay, so in fairness we pay up to 10 students. We pay per student.
• And the key is that the college is paying the instructor.
• Everybody pays the same, or subsidized, unsubsidized.
• So several years ago the state stopped paying for that.

Summary: The committee reconvened at North Dakota State College of Science for a presentation from President Dr. Flanagan and college leaders about NDSCS’s mission, enrollment growth, workforce training, and facilities needs. Flanagan highlighted student success in national competitions, strong placement and retention, growing enrollment, and new or expanding programs in aviation maintenance, fire science, dental hygiene, community health worker training, surgical technology, HVAC/plumbing, and precision agriculture. He also emphasized the college’s partnerships with industry, including John Deere, Fargo Jet Center, Sanford, and Comdel Innovation, and said NDSCS plans to seek approval next session for a revenue bond to build a new dorm and to remodel the library into academic and allied health space. Allied health dean Deb Smith testified that her division is at capacity and needs a simulation center, more lab and classroom space, and expanded dental and OTA facilities to meet demand and accreditation needs. Committee members questioned Flanagan and staff about workforce shortages, especially faculty pay, and whether the college can staff additional growth. Flanagan said the biggest challenge is recruiting instructors because industry pays more, but noted some health care and adjunct hiring is possible because of schedule flexibility and benefits. He also discussed shifting resources away from lower-demand programs like power sports toward higher-demand areas such as automotive and aviation maintenance. Members also asked about the college’s identity as a technical institution, with Flanagan arguing North Dakota would benefit from a more defined tech-school system. The committee then received a University System presentation from Jamie Wilkie on the cost of delivering dual credit. Wilkie explained the methodology used to allocate direct and overhead costs across subsidized and unsubsidized dual credit, noting that dual credit and early entry account for about 5.9% of total credit hours and 2.7% of formula funding. The analysis showed subsidized dual credit tuition revenue of about $5.5 million and unsubsidized revenue of about $2.9 million, with some institutions showing margins and others losses depending on the model. Members discussed whether K-12 funding should also be reflected, how payments to high schools and teachers are structured, and whether tuition-free dual credit would require replacing both tuition revenue and the current dual credit scholarship. No votes were taken; the committee simply received the presentations and discussed the findings.

Transcript Highlights:

• And yet we are still paying them as if they are mortgages.
• I'm paying more money for a house that does not exist now. I pay $4,202 a month for that.
• I'm paying more money for a house that does not exist now. I pay $4,202 a month for that.
• I pay $4,202 a month for that.
• Moore say he's paying over $10,000 in one month.

Summary: The Assembly Banking and Finance Committee held an outcomes review of AB 238, the wildfire mortgage forbearance law, focused on how the law has worked for survivors of the Eaton and Palisades fires. Chair Valencia and Assemblymember Harabedian said the hearing was intended to hear directly from survivors, assess whether the law is being implemented as intended, and identify fixes. Several survivors described losing homes, facing long rebuild timelines, and struggling with insurers, housing costs, and mortgage servicers. Many said they encountered confusion, inconsistent information, requests for financial documentation, lump-sum repayment demands, credit reporting problems, or loan modifications that they viewed as undermining the law’s purpose. Some urged clearer consumer education, a consumer bill of rights, and an extension of forbearance relief; one witness specifically advocated for AB 1847 to extend forbearance to 36 months. DFPI Chief Deputy Commissioner Suzanne Martindale said the department had received about 300 wildfire-related consumer complaints, mostly about mortgage forbearance, and that more than 91% had been resolved in the consumer’s favor. She said the department works with both state-licensed and federally regulated institutions, but its authority is limited when national banks are involved, so it often uses outreach and direct contact with lenders and federal partners to resolve complaints. She also described recurring complaint themes such as difficulty obtaining forbearance, customer-service breakdowns, withholding of insurance funds, and non-interest-bearing impound accounts. Committee members pressed DFPI on which institutions were noncompliant, what enforcement tools were available, and how much data the state could collect and make public. Representatives of the California Bankers Association and California Mortgage Bankers Association said lenders had provided early disaster relief and were working to comply with AB 238, but emphasized that mortgage servicing is constrained by federal law, investor requirements, and secondary-market guidelines. They argued that forbearance is temporary relief, not forgiveness, and warned that extending it without a clear repayment path can create future payment shock or larger debt burdens. They also said many servicers use disaster protocols tied to federal declarations and that clearer communication is needed. In response to committee concerns, the mortgage bankers said they would continue working with the Legislature and federal agencies, but could not promise changes beyond investor and agency rules. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And yet we are still paying them as if they are mortgages.
• I'm paying more money for a house that does not exist now. I pay $4,202 a month for that.
• I'm paying more money for a house that does not exist now. I pay $4,202 a month for that.
• I pay $4,202 a month for that.
• Moore say he's paying over $10,000 in one month.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• paying 75% of the share.
• So the amount of administrative expenses that we pay for SNAP go from 50-50 share to we're paying 75%
• pay.
• The end user always pays for an increase.
• Pay. Has the increase in pay helped in recruiting any at all? Yes, sir. It definitely has helped.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• So in that... ...under GRT, and then that's what you pay.
• And so one part is, and I guess you can look at the scenario, you pay here or you pay there.
• And I guess you can look at the scenario: you pay here or you pay there.
• their taxes, literally couldn't pay their taxes.
• But everybody will pay.

Bills: SB36, SB88, SB92, SB97, SB48, SB55, SB58, SB76, SB93, SB89, SB60

Keywords: quantum technology, tax credit, infrastructure, economic development, New Mexico, corporate tax, research and development, innovation, foster care, income tax, guardianship, youth services, financial relief, affordable housing, gross receipts tax, tax deduction, construction materials, multifamily housing, low income, tax credits