Transcript Highlights:

• Well, law said you could have two, but after that, then you got to pay taxes on all of it.
• Do you go back and pay sales tax on all $5,000, or do you just pay it on the $1?
• It's like, well, the first $5,000, I don't have to pay sales tax on.
• From $5,000 to $7,500, you're going to pay just on the over $5,000.
• And after $7,500, you need to be paying it on everything. So that's it, Mr. Chairman.

Summary: The Senate Local Government and Taxation Committee heard and advanced four measures. House Bill 792, by Rep. Monks, clarified the relationship between yard sales and the small seller exemption, including how sales tax applies once a seller exceeds the $5,000 threshold and when activity goes beyond the small-seller limits. The committee asked no questions and voted unanimously to send the bill to the floor with a due pass recommendation. House Bill 722, by Rep. Ayler, corrected timing issues in the new utility tax system created last year, aligning reporting and payment dates with the existing six-month property tax cycle so local governments have revenue figures for budgeting. The sponsor said counties, utilities, and the Tax Commission were all involved and supportive. The committee approved the bill for the floor with a due pass recommendation. The committee also heard House Bill 707, by Sen. Taves, which would create a streamlined process for subdividing land to finance an accessory dwelling unit or secondary residential structure without going through a full subdivision process, while keeping zoning, access, utility, and agricultural protections in place. No one testified against it, and it was sent to the floor with a due pass recommendation. House Bill 800, also by Sen. Taves, would reduce zoning barriers for manufactured housing by allowing manufactured duplexes in multifamily zones and lowering square-footage thresholds for single-section and multisection homes; the Idaho Manufactured Housing Association testified in strong support. The committee passed that bill to the floor as well. Finally, members approved the March 4, 2026 minutes and adjourned, announcing a meeting the next day at 2:00 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• We pay for it. We pay income tax over this. We pay property taxes over this. This is my job.
• We pay for it. We pay income tax it. We pay for it. We pay income tax over<01:43:57.679><c> this.
• Um, I do pay property taxes. I also pay the meals and rooms tax.
• to pay for the to pay for the fees. fees. fees.
• </c> wells had to pay to treat their water. wells had to pay to treat their water.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1596, which would raise New Hampshire’s cigarette excise tax from $1.78 per pack to about $2.80, using an inflation-based adjustment since the rate was last set in 2008. Representative Jerry Stringham, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure would keep New Hampshire competitive with neighboring states, generate revenue, and help offset other budget pressures. He also described the bill as repealing an income-based premium charge in Medicaid/CHIP-related programs and restoring cuts to the University System of New Hampshire, arguing that the combined package would still leave the state in a positive fiscal position. He said the tobacco tax increase would likely have some cessation effect but would remain low relative to other New England states, and he cited prior testimony from health groups supporting a larger increase. Members questioned the sponsor about how the new rate was calculated, the prior tobacco tax reduction and restoration, whether tobacco companies would absorb or pass on the tax, and the fiscal note’s estimates for Medicaid premium revenue and UNH funding. Stringham said he used Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation data, that the earlier 10-cent reduction did not produce the expected sales increase, and that the current bill would eliminate the premium charges now in the budget. He later clarified that the Department of Medicaid Services had updated the revenue estimate, but said the bill still showed a surplus overall. He also said the federal government already imposes a $1-per-pack tax and that New Hampshire would remain below neighboring states even after the increase. Two public witnesses testified in opposition to the tax increase. Anna Bettincourt, a tobacco category manager, argued that higher tobacco taxes would unfairly target smokers, reduce New Hampshire’s tax advantage, and likely shift purchases to other states or illicit markets rather than reduce use. She said tobacco companies generally do not lower prices and that Massachusetts’ flavor restrictions had not eliminated sales. In response to questions, she maintained that a smaller increase would still be harmful and that enforcement problems make bans ineffective. The sponsor and some members countered that smokers impose higher health costs and that tobacco taxes are a policy tool for both revenue and public health. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's about paying for the coach. It's about paying for the bus that transports these students.
• Taxpayers are still paying into the system.
• And someone mentioned it's pay to play. It should be pay to play. It is pay to play.
• Someone mentioned it's pay to play. It should be pay to play. It is pay to play.
• Unconstitutional because it's pay to play.

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, approved the prior day’s journal, and received committee reports and House messages. Among the reported actions, several bills were advanced or enrolled, Senate Bill 1441 was sent to the 14th order for possible amendment, and House Bill 1449 on election petition circulation was introduced and referred. The chamber then moved into third reading and final consideration of multiple measures. Several bills were debated and passed, including House Bill 772 on industrial hemp negligence standards, House Bill 879 clarifying hemp product regulation, House Bill 926 expanding community infrastructure district authority to certain county areas, House Bill 894 protecting the public’s right to record open meetings, and House Bill 932 placing an advisory question on the ballot to select an official state gun. Supporters generally described these as technical clarifications, transparency measures, or tools to support agriculture, infrastructure, and public participation; opponents raised concerns about property taxes, rural development, and the symbolism of the state gun measure. House Bill 1436 on cooperative purchasing also passed after debate over procurement flexibility and a pending court case. Other measures failed or were sent back. Senate Bill 1424, which would have expanded protections for licensed motor vehicle dealers and restricted direct manufacturer sales, failed on a 11-24 vote after opponents called it protectionist and argued for consumer choice. House Bill 888 on information technology procurement drew criticism over vague “reasonable fee” language and lack of competitive bidding, and the Senate unanimously returned it to committee. House Bill 934, making technical changes to the parental school choice tax credit, passed after extensive debate over whether students participating in public school extracurriculars should remain eligible; supporters said it clarified original intent, while opponents argued it allowed “double dipping.”

Transcript Highlights:

• And so in the winner-pay, I'm just curious: in your definition of winner-pay, would the winner-pay be
• Would the winner-pay be whoever's closer to the arbitration settlement?
• We pay more because the patient was paying more before. Now we pay more.
• So that is us paying that 2,342, but it is nowhere near that 18,577.
• We're not trying to pay more.

Bills: HB136, HB451, SB425, SB466, SB905, SB1986, SB2311, SB2450, SB2805, SB2826, SB2919, SB3001

Keywords: Medicaid, lactation, healthcare, consultation, reimbursement, maternal health, infant care, commercial sexual exploitation, child sex trafficking, human trafficking, child welfare, foster care, DFPS, Department of Family and Protective Services, juvenile probation, risk assessment, needs assessment, trauma screening, child abuse prevention, exploitation screening

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and announced it would vote on pending bills at 10:30, with public testimony limited to two minutes. It first took up Senate Bill 905, a TDLR cleanup bill on licensing regulation of speech-language pathologists and audiologists. Senator Zafferini said the committee substitute would streamline advisory board consultation, remove obsolete provisional licenses, and allow any licensed physician to authorize hearing instruments for minors; the substitute was adopted and the bill left pending. The committee then heard House Bill 451, which would require universal screening for commercial sexual exploitation risk for children in DFPS conservatorship and youth under TJJD jurisdiction. The author and witnesses from Children at Risk, the Fort Bend Anti-Trafficking Collective, and Texas CASA supported the bill as a prevention tool with existing infrastructure and training; the committee adopted the substitute and left the bill pending. The committee next considered Senate Bill 466, which would clarify that families may request a fetal death certificate at any gestational age, while keeping existing filing requirements for physicians. A constituent father testified about losing his 11-week-old daughter and being told he could not obtain a certificate, which he said prevented funeral arrangements; the substitute was adopted and the bill left pending. Senate Bill 2311 followed, requiring residential treatment centers to have a written agreement with the school that will educate resident children before becoming operational. The author cited a local dispute where an RTC and school district lacked communication, and witnesses from Texas CASA and Disability Rights Texas supported clearer educational planning while suggesting the Education Code may need conforming changes; the bill was left pending. The committee then heard Senate Bill 2826, known as Alyssa’s Law, which would create a statewide education program on medical child abuse for medical students, health care professionals, and CPS caseworkers. The author and Sheriff Bill Weyburn described Alyssa’s case as involving repeated unnecessary surgeries and argued the bill would improve awareness and early identification, while several witnesses and members raised concerns about false accusations, impacts on medically fragile children, and the need for scientific, peer-reviewed training and safeguards. After extensive discussion, the chair left the bill pending. The committee also heard House Bill 136, which would add certified lactation consultants as Medicaid providers to expand breastfeeding support; witnesses from lactation and nutrition fields said the bill would improve access, maternal and infant health, and long-term savings, and the bill was left pending. Finally, the committee took up Senate Bill 2805, a surprise-billing/arbitration measure that would clarify provider identifiers and shift arbitration costs to the losing party. The author said the substitute was a legislative counsel draft with no substantive difference, and witnesses from the Texas Medical Association, Texas Society of Anesthesiologists, and U.S. Anesthesia Partners supported the bill as a modest improvement that would reduce administrative confusion and make arbitration fairer without weakening patient protections. Members discussed how arbitration costs affect settlement behavior and how to define the “winner” in close cases. The bill was heard but not voted out during this segment.

Transcript Highlights:

• They are paying tuition. They and their families also pay taxes. They're earning this education.
• If you own a business, you're paying taxes. If you use our tollways, you're paying taxes.
• If you buy something at any store, you're paying taxes. If you work, you're paying taxes.
• We are allowing them to pay the same rate that other students who were born here are paying.
• They're willing to pay.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, a moment of silence for the Parkland shooting victims, the Pledge of Allegiance, and adoption of the special order report for the day. The chamber then moved into a special-order agenda focused almost entirely on immigration-related measures, beginning with Senate Memorial 6C urging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to provide guidance and training for 287(g) agreements. The memorial was adopted 85-27 after brief debate, with supporters arguing Florida should help maximize federal immigration enforcement and opponents saying Congress, not the state, should fix immigration policy. The House next took up Senate Bill 4C, an immigration bill creating new state offenses for illegal entry and reentry by adult unauthorized aliens and requiring a mandatory death sentence for an unauthorized alien convicted of a capital felony. Members debated constitutional concerns, due process, racial profiling, fiscal impacts, and whether the bill intruded on federal immigration authority. Several amendments were offered and defeated, including proposals to extend protections to Venezuelans with TPS, to remove the mandatory death penalty, to protect certain long-term immigrant workers and teachers, to expand exemptions for Haitians and humanitarian parole recipients, and to create a task force on best practices for immigration enforcement in schools and other sensitive locations. A final amendment to strip the bill as unconstitutional was also rejected. The bill then passed 85-29. The final measure discussed was Senate Bill 2C, which creates a State Board of Immigration Enforcement led by the Governor and Cabinet, establishes grants and incentive bonuses for local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities, repeals the fee waiver for undocumented students beginning July 1, 2025, and appropriates more than $300 million for immigration enforcement. The sponsor described it as a broad enforcement package, while questions from members focused on the impact on current students who receive in-state tuition and whether the bill would remove incentives for those already enrolled. The transcript ends during that exchange, before final action on SB 2C is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:21.000><c> minimum</c> workers, employers avoid paying minimum workers, employers avoid paying
• I still can't pay you, right?"
• I still can't pay you, right?"
• </c> to pay rent, to buy groceries, to pay to pay rent, to buy groceries, to pay their<01:36:14.320><
• </c> businesses are are continually paying. businesses are are continually paying.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy Committee met to discuss worker misclassification, beginning with approval of the March 4, 2026 minutes and a note that a late-posted bill would not be heard at this time. Chair Pinto opened the hearing by framing misclassification as timely and invited Lea Takapu of the Attorney General’s office to explain the issue. Takapu described misclassification as labeling workers as independent contractors when they are really employees, which can deprive workers of minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, and other protections while also reducing tax revenue. She said the Attorney General’s office and the MEAP partnership have been working on the issue and cited estimates that Minnesota workers lose billions annually and the state loses hundreds of millions to over a billion dollars in revenue, while noting that legitimate independent contracting is not the target. Members questioned how the committee could rely on estimates when the exact number of misclassified workers is unknown. Takapu responded that the figures were based on studies and complaint data, and that underground or undocumented work makes exact counts difficult. Chair Pinto noted the numbers were estimates and referenced a 2024 Legislative Auditor finding that Minnesota lacked an adequate, coordinated approach to proper worker classification, while saying progress had been made since then. Several industry witnesses then testified in support of stronger enforcement. Kevin Pranis of LiUNA said misclassification remains rampant in parts of construction, especially drywall, stucco, thin stone, and broadband installation, and argued it is tax, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation fraud that harms law-abiding contractors and taxpayers. Matt Wollers of Braxton and Sons said his company loses bids to competitors that misclassify workers, creating a labor-cost advantage of 30% or more, and asked for meaningful enforcement rather than new legislation, including regular unannounced jobsite visits. Jesse Madison of Purple Tally Productions said misclassification is anti-competition and described examples from live events and entertainment, urging front-end checks on workers’ compensation, unemployment coverage, and W-2 versus 1099 status before work begins. The next testifier, Ben Ballou of the Minnesota Nurses Association, began his remarks as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Customers are having to pay more.
• It's just essentially how fast you want the project to pay for itself.
• Or I have to go to an investor and pay them an even higher return than I would pay the bank to get that
• How would you pay me the $10?
• Geren will pay that swipe fee.

Bills: HB246, HB796, HB 1056, HB1544, HB1846, HB2001, HB2618, HB2625, HB2869, HB2898, HB3069, HB3114, HB3157, HB3228, HJR98, HB246

Keywords: federal directives, state authority, Tenth Amendment, government enforcement, local governance, gold standard, legal tender, currency, transactional currency, financial transactions, electronic payment systems, state finance, regulatory compliance, electric trucks, charging infrastructure, advisory council, transportation, sustainability, criminal penalties, official information

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, I've had people say to me that no one is paying anybody $7.25 an hour.
• up by having to pay child care.
• It doesn't pay to work. It would be actually cheaper to stay at home.
• That matters because it's a real raise for people at the bottom of the pay scale.
• It says that you shall pay that rate.

Summary: The Committee on Local and Municipal Affairs met on May 21, 2012, with a quorum present and first approved the minutes from the prior meeting. The committee then heard Senate Bill 230 by Senator Barrow, a proposed constitutional amendment to let voters decide whether Louisiana should establish a state livable/minimum wage starting at $10.25 per hour in 2027, with future increases tied to the Consumer Price Index. Senator Barrow and several supporters framed the bill as a response to stagnant wages, rising housing and living costs, poverty, and related social problems, including crime, family instability, and child care barriers. A technical amendment was adopted to correct the bill’s language after questions were raised about whether it improperly required all employers to pay the stated wage rather than setting a minimum wage floor. Public testimony was largely in favor. Supporters included Mother Pearl Porter, who described decades of wage stagnation compared with sharply rising costs of rent, food, and gas; Angela Adkins of 10,000 Women Louisiana, who said workers should be able to cover basic expenses and that indexing wages to inflation would prevent future erosion; Jan Moeller of Invest in Louisiana, who argued the bill would help the ALICE population and noted Louisiana’s high poverty and inequality rates; Julie Schwamm Harris, who linked low wages to broader economic and social harms; Tom Costanza of the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops, who cited Catholic social teaching and the common good; and Tyler Phillips, who spoke about the impact of low wages on students and low-income communities. The Louisiana Restaurant Association opposed the bill, arguing it did not account for tipped workers and would increase costs for restaurants and consumers. After debate, Senator Boudreaux moved to report SB 230 as amended. The motion failed on a roll call vote, 2 yeas and 3 nays, so the bill was not reported from committee. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, during the pay plan, did we not give you all a million dollars to meet that?
• No, sir, you wasn't increased during the pay plan. Mm-mm. I'm sorry, I missed you for money.
• I can't speak, Senator, to whether or not they received money at this point within the pay plan.
• Unless you're paying 30 employees $10,000 each. Yeah, all the appropriations.
• We're also going to be paying in teachers' insurance for everyone that participates in it.

Summary: The committee first considered the Lieutenant Governor’s Office budget and personnel request. Office representatives said they wanted to move the office to the state pay plan to better align salaries with other constitutional offices and remain competitive, noting that OPM had approved the positions and grades. Senators questioned the size of the requested increases and the office’s workload, and after discussion the motion to adopt the proposal failed on an 8-8 tie. The committee then voted to expunge that vote and returned to the regular agenda. The committee approved a series of Governor’s letters involving position transfers and appropriation adjustments across several agencies. These included changes for AETN, the Department of Health and Nursing Board/Dietetics Board, multiple DHS divisions, DFA shared services and budget management, and the Department of Public Safety shared services division. Most of these items involved moving positions and associated salary appropriations between divisions, with no major opposition and motions passing. A lengthy discussion followed on the transfer of child nutrition and related nutrition programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Agriculture. Education and DFA officials explained that the programs fit better under Agriculture because the funding and commodities are tied to USDA programs, and they clarified that both state and federal funding and all related positions would move. Senators raised concerns about the math in the letters, the split between state and federal funding, and whether all program resources were being transferred. After the explanation, the committee approved the Education side of the transfer and then approved the Agriculture companion letter. The committee also discussed the Educational Freedom Account program budget. Officials said the $309 million request matched current participation and included a $70 million reserve in case applications increase. Several senators expressed concern about the program’s growth and its effect on public education funding and adequacy, while others noted that the program’s rules and funding levels could be adjusted through the State Board and future legislative action. The committee then approved a Public Safety classification change and a member amendment changing a title at East Arkansas Community College from assistant to the president to assistant to the chancellor, with no change in positions or appropriation.

Transcript Highlights:

• And when you look at the list of nonprofits and executive pay, you will be astonished at some of them
• And, uh, if they want to pay them that, that's fine.
• Uh, there's one that's kind of pay for performance or fee for service.
• </c><00:09:55.519><c> for</c> there's one that's kind of pay for there's one that's kind of pay for performance
• So not to flip a highest paying jobs.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> employeer is re reinstated with back pay employeer is re reinstated with back pay and<00:27:03.360
• We have to pay that service.
• to pay that service.
• It won't be now; people can't pay, so they don't pay.
• pay so they don't pay I don't they can't pay so they don't pay I don't care<04:56:29.920><c> how</c><

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard from the Personnel Appeals Board, which explained that it became an independent state agency after Senate Bill 487 and was presenting its first standalone operating budget. The board described its quasi-judicial role in hearing appeals from classified state employees over disciplinary actions such as warnings, suspensions, and terminations, and said it handles about 25 to 35 cases a year, with some cases lasting longer because of their complexity. Members also outlined the need for a chair and vice chair who are attorneys, the board’s current staffing and space needs, and its plan to move away from reliance on Administrative Services for office support and website functions. The board requested about $353,500 for fiscal year 2026, including startup costs, routine operating expenses, and two new part-time positions: a program director and a paralegal. Members said the budget reflects the new independent status, includes funding for only four board members rather than the authorized five, and is designed to avoid full-time staffing costs and benefits. Legislators asked about the cost per case, the board’s relationship to DAS, whether appeals must go through the board before court, and how often cases are appealed further. The board said appeals must first go through it, that court appeals are infrequent but have increased recently, and that the board’s process is intended to resolve disputes more quickly and less expensively than court litigation. Committee members also asked about the board’s caseload, outcomes, and staffing. The board said that in the prior year there were 22 cases, with four decisions overturned in favor of employees, nine dismissals, and nine settlements, and that many disputes are resolved before reaching the board through a multi-step internal process. A member noted the governor and council had recently approved a new board member and were expected to approve a fifth soon. The discussion ended with questions about the board’s website and records access, which members said would need to be moved from Administrative Services as part of the agency’s transition. The committee then moved to the New Hampshire Council on Developmental Disabilities. The executive director explained that the council is 100 percent federally funded under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act and develops a five-year plan to address the needs of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. She said the council works with state agencies and advocacy organizations on quality-of-life issues, accessibility, voter rights training, and plain-language or easy-to-read materials, and that 60 percent of its membership must be individuals with disabilities or family members/guardians. She also described the council’s funding structure, including reimbursement to the state for operating costs, and noted that it currently has three full-time and three part-time positions, with no new positions requested but one full-time position being eliminated and replaced after a pandemic-era staffing change did not work out as planned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's the cost-sharing issue, or the co-pays.
• We won't have to pay for surgeries. We won't have to pay for very, very expensive medications.
• This bill would end the use of co-pay accumulators.
• What should have happened is that the co-pay of nearly $1,600 should have been covered by our co-pay
• Co-pays, they can be cost prohibitive for many patients.

Summary: The committee heard several health-related bills, beginning with SB 1124 on lung cancer screening awareness. The author and supporters said the bill would require CDPH signage about lung cancer screening eligibility at tobacco point-of-sale locations to address low awareness and low screening rates. Support came from medical students, physicians, and the California Academy of Family Physicians, while retailers raised concerns about sign size, retailer notification, and implementation. Committee members generally supported the bill and noted the need to work through those concerns. SB 1150 sought to require clearer patient notice when cancer cases are reported to the California Cancer Registry. The author described the bill as a response to inconsistent notification practices and privacy concerns, and the chair and other members shared personal stories about learning they or family members were in the registry without knowing it. Cancer registry and university stakeholders expressed appreciation for amendments but continued to have concerns or wanted more time to review the language. The bill was discussed as a patient-awareness measure rather than a change to reporting requirements. The committee also heard SB 1400 on Alameda Health System governance, SB 1094 on biosimilar substitution and health plan policies, SB 1314 on smoke shop regulation and nitrous oxide restrictions, and SB 1309 on eliminating cost-sharing for medically necessary follow-up after lung cancer screening. SB 1400 and SB 1314 drew support from local officials, labor, and public health advocates, with members emphasizing youth protection and local oversight. SB 1094 passed after extensive debate over pharmacist substitution authority and notification requirements, with a 6-0 vote and opposition from biotechnology and physician groups. SB 1309 also passed after members discussed the cost of follow-up care and the value of early detection, despite opposition from health plans over premium impacts; it received a 7-0 vote and was placed on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition, Californians pay the highest gas taxes in the nation, often paying 50 to...
• Californians pay the highest gas taxes in the nation, often paying 50 to 60 cents more per gallon in
• pay more to purchase their goods in stores.
• and survivor benefit pay.
• and survivor benefit pay.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think this is really what I ought to pay you, and then you just pay whatever that is.
• So does your department pay for that? Who pays for that?
• the state paying for that person?
• for that who pays for So does your department pay for that who pays for that and in the other case that
• It took me a year to pay that off.

Summary: The committee met as the House Commerce Committee of Reference to hear sunset reviews and a performance audit covering the Department of Gaming, the Racing Commission, the Boxing and MMA Commission, the Barbering and Cosmetology Board, and the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority. The Auditor General reported that the Department of Gaming and the two commissions generally met some statutory duties, but identified major issues: the department had not consistently reviewed independent audit reports for event wagering and fantasy sports operators, had disclosure and conflict-of-interest compliance gaps, lacked comprehensive complaint-handling processes, and was late distributing some compact trust fund payments to tribes. The Racing Commission needed better public records procedures, and the Boxing and MMA Commission had licensing and fee-setting issues. The department and commissions said they agreed with the findings and were implementing recommendations, with the department noting it had already begun look-back reviews, updated guidance, and additional staffing. Members also discussed consumer protection, illegal gambling, prediction markets, and whether out-of-state enforcement actions should affect Arizona licenses; the department said it would evaluate such matters case by case and generally wait for final adjudication or final regulatory action before acting. The committee then voted to recommend continuation of the Department of Gaming for two years until July 1, 2028, the Racing Commission for six years until July 1, 2032, and the Boxing and MMA Commission for six years until July 1, 2032. The Department of Gaming motion passed 7-4, the Racing Commission motion passed 10-1, and the Boxing and MMA Commission motion passed unanimously. The committee next heard the Barbering and Cosmetology Board audit. The Auditor General said the board timely processed many applications and complaints and had adopted curriculum rules, but it failed to enforce disciplinary guidelines consistently, sometimes issuing different sanctions for similar violations without documenting why it deviated from policy. The audit also found problems with reciprocity education requirements, application review quality control, inspections, open meeting and public records compliance, conflict-of-interest processes, fee-setting, and statutory clarity on scope of practice and training requirements. The board said it agreed with the findings, had already updated disciplinary parameters and documentation policies, and was working on the remaining recommendations and possible legislation. The committee then voted to continue the board for six years until July 1, 2032, and the motion passed unanimously. At the end of the meeting, the committee began hearing the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority performance audit, but the transcript provided cuts off before that presentation was completed or any action was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then finally, self-pay and cash pay.
• or a cash pay option.
• Do they expect that I'm paying my premiums, I'm paying my co-pays, I'm paying my co-insurance, I should
• Do they expect that I'm paying my premiums? I'm paying my co-pays. I'm paying my co-insurance.
• And when we say free, we do pay for premiums. Everybody's paying for premiums.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to review the history and current treatment of North Dakota health insurance mandates, with presentations from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, Sanford Health Plan, the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), and the Insurance Department. The discussion focused on how mandates apply differently to fully insured, self-funded, ACA, Medicaid, and PERS plans; how the state’s benchmark plan and federal essential health benefits affect coverage; and how the existing process requires cost-benefit analysis and, for certain measures, a PERS pilot period before broader application. Presenters also reviewed the long list of existing state mandates, including provider, beneficiary, and coverage requirements, and noted that many were enacted decades ago and have not been revisited despite changes in medical evidence and treatment options. Witnesses from the carriers argued that mandates should be reviewed periodically because some are outdated, can create unintended costs, and may not align with current medical guidance. Examples cited included PSA screening, off-label drug coverage, prior authorization rules, step therapy, and cost-sharing provisions for mental health and substance use treatment. They emphasized that carriers often cover services without a mandate when supported by clinical evidence, and that mandates can shift costs to employers and employees, especially in the fully insured small-group market. They also suggested possible policy improvements such as clearer mandate definitions, better transparency around cost-benefit analyses, a regular 10-year review of mandates, and more timely submission of proposals through the interim process. PERS and the Insurance Department highlighted a recurring tension over what counts as a mandate and when a measure triggers the state’s defrayal obligation under federal law. PERS described its interim committee process, the April 1 deadline for fiscal-impact proposals, and the limited pilot program used for certain measures, noting that only a few bills have gone through the full pilot process. The Insurance Department explained that it views new benefit mandates through the lens of the ACA benchmark plan and essential health benefits, distinguishing true new benefits, such as infertility coverage, from changes to existing benefits, such as telehealth or insulin cost-sharing caps. No votes were taken on policy changes; the meeting was informational, with members asking questions about costs, applicability, transparency, and whether a periodic mandate review should be established.

Transcript Highlights:

• test and then 148 million is to pay for the structured literacy, right?
• So one of them you would require to pay Davis Bacon.
• So who is paying that tax levy on real property, Mr. Speaker and gentle lady? Mr.
• And would you be, uh, amenable to paying taxes for this change? Mr.
• , they have to put taxes on the consumer who has to pay them at the end of the day.

Transcript Highlights:

• I pay for all my tickets.
• </c><00:43:01.119><c> for</c> J BL Sunday I seen Billy eish I pay for J BL Sunday I seen Billy eish I
• pay for all<00:43:01.440><c> my</c><00:43:01.640><c> tickets</c><00:43:02.520><c> I</c><00:43:02.760
• Pay for the debt service for this one project, or do we look at the entire state of Minnesota and all
• to pay for it through<00:51:55.520><c> a</c><00:51:55.640><c> local</c><00:51:55.920><c> option</c><

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This park, even though it has a lot of visitors, it doesn't pay for itself.
• It's their property, so they actually help pay for that.
• It's their property, so they actually help pay for that.
• And so as a state agency, we have to pay for our people's training. Thank you.
• And our pay scale for the defenders, could you give us a few relative differences?

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee met with a quorum and first heard a budget presentation for the Department of Parks and Recreation. Legislative analyst Janet Jessup reviewed the agency’s structure, dedicated funds, prior ARPA and general fund infrastructure appropriations, and the department’s FY 2027 requests. Those requests included additional park personnel and trail maintenance staff, one-time project funding, and a supplemental $9.8 million transfer to move grant funds from a consolidated program into the current park operations program. Director Susan Buxton said the agency has no general fund request, emphasized the economic impact of outdoor recreation, and highlighted completed and ongoing capital projects at parks statewide, including Ponderosa, Heyburn, Priest Lake, Eagle Island, Cascade, Harriman, Ashtonia Trail, and Bruneau Dunes. Committee members asked about resident access to campsites, out-of-state pricing, vacancy filling, the new Twin Peaks property in Lemhi County, OHV education, and trail maintenance. Buxton said the agency is filling positions quickly, that higher nonresident fees have increased availability for Idahoans, and that the Twin Peaks acquisition is expected to become revenue-positive within two years. The committee then heard the Office of the State Public Defender budget. Analyst Janica Bicharat summarized the office’s staffing, fund balance, and FY 2027 requests, which included six additional trial attorney positions, secure hosted data storage, and one-time laptop and data migration costs. Director Eric Frederickson described the agency’s transition to a statewide public defense system, noting that it inherited more than 1,300 cases on day one, has since reduced vacancies to about 7%, and is building pipelines for attorneys and social workers. He warned that the pending Tucker v. State of Idaho case could lead to renewed litigation if the system is not adequately funded. In response to questions, Frederickson said the office can absorb the current year’s rescissions through vacancy savings, but future cuts could force reductions in training and contract attorneys, increasing caseloads and risking attorney retention. He also said CPA case costs are running above appropriation, county lease/MOU issues remain unresolved in some counties, and public defenders are generally paid less than county prosecutors and attorney general attorneys. The committee adjourned after announcing the next day’s budget hearings for the Industrial Commission, Public Utilities Commission, and Secretary of State.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we don't know whether they're going to be able to pay that back.
• We have fare-paying ridership, and then there's non-fare-paying ridership.
• non-fare-paying ridership...
• What the increase in fare-paying ridership is versus non-fare-paying ridership, and what that balance
• Because that paying sector is the one... ...that was optional.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard two measures: AB 107, a budget bill junior making largely technical changes to the 2023, 2024, and 2025 budget acts, and AB 117, a trailer bill authorizing a $590 million loan structure to support four Bay Area transit agencies through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission using unallocated Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program funds. Finance explained AB 107 included technical fixes such as extending encumbrance periods, updating federal authority, correcting fiscal language, moving $20 million for California travel promotion from Visit California to GoBiz, and adding an APA exemption for implementation of already-approved climate bond programs. AB 117 was described as a cost-neutral regional solution with a 12-year loan term, two years interest-only, and repayment secured through existing state transit funding streams, with oversight by CalSTA, CTC, and MTC to limit impacts on other projects. Members raised concerns about transparency, competitive bidding, and whether APA exemptions and no-bid or emergency processes could reduce oversight, while supporters argued the exemptions were needed to get voter-approved climate and wildfire-related funds out the door. On AB 117, senators questioned whether the loan could become a de facto bailout if a Bay Area sales tax measure fails, whether post-pandemic ridership declines and safety/fare-evasion issues are temporary or structural, and whether the loan could jeopardize TIRCP-funded capital projects such as BART Phase 2. Transit agencies and local representatives testified in support, saying ridership is recovering, the loan is critical to avoid service cuts, and the Bay Area economy depends on transit stability. The committee first passed AB 107 on a 9-4 vote and AB 117 on a 9-4 vote, then held both bills on call. After recess, absent members returned and both measures were lifted from call and passed with 11 votes each. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• How are the schools going to pay for these?
• And you're wanting us to pay the billed amount to get 44495.
• They need to be paying that GRT.
• Madam Chair, if it's TriCore, then they should or would be paying GRT taxes here.
• And so this is... ...places like Delaware to essentially not pay taxes where they need to.

Summary: The House Health and Human Services Committee first heard House Bill 256, which would require school cardiac emergency response plans to address sudden cardiac arrest at school athletic activities and ensure AEDs are clearly marked and accessible at those events. The sponsor and an American Heart Association representative said the bill builds on last year’s law and is meant to improve implementation, not add new equipment costs. Members asked about funding, were told the AEDs are already in place, and the bill received a due pass with no opposition. The committee then took up House Bill 278 on Medicaid reimbursement for toxicology testing in substance use disorder treatment. The sponsor and Southwest Labs argued that current payer policies limit providers’ clinical judgment, that a new flat-rate code for unlimited analytes would improve care, keep Medicaid dollars in New Mexico, and support local laboratories. Several members raised concerns about whether the bill effectively rewrites bundled G-codes, whether it mainly benefits one company, how it affects MCO contracts, GRT/tax issues, and whether the fiscal estimates were realistic. After extensive questioning and conflicting views, a due-pass motion was made but the vote ended in a tie, so the bill did not advance. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 287 to create a permanent, full-time Health and Human Services Committee with a director and expanded membership, similar to other permanent legislative committees. Supporters from advocacy and policy groups said health care is too large and complex to be handled by a part-time interim committee and that year-round staffing would improve oversight and policymaking. Members discussed committee composition, staffing, subpoena power, and the proposed appropriation, and the sponsor said the bill is a starting point that could be refined later. The committee approved HB 287 on a do-pass motion and then adjourned until Monday morning.