Transcript Highlights:

• funding, do they not?
• And if they're not working, they're not paying their bills.
• But that is a group that we would not, would not pay and have not in the past.
• There's language saying we shall pay; we're choosing not to pay.
• There's language saying we shall pay, we're choosing not to pay.

Committee: House Budget

Summary: The committee first heard the Office of the Governor’s FY 2027 budget request from Adam Gresham. He explained the office’s staffing and noted a $500,000 core reduction, along with a reallocation of three positions and about $168,000 from the governor’s office to the mansion operating fund to better reflect where those employees work. Members asked about the National Guard emergency line, which Gresham said had already spent about $63,457 in FY 2026 and could be used again for disaster activations, though he did not expect to use the full $4 million. He also said the agricultural resiliency transfer fund had not been used and had no current transfer plans. Several members commented on the size of the governor’s cut and whether the judiciary and other offices were also being asked to reduce budgets. No votes were taken. The committee then moved to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Office of Childhood and early childhood-related budget items. DESE staff described funding for the Office of Childhood, MoQPK child care provider grants, LEA pre-K grants, early childhood special education, Parents as Teachers, First Steps, preschool coordination, after-school programs, and child care subsidy. Members asked extensively about the MoQPK grants, including why Head Start providers were eligible, how curriculum approval works, and what safeguards exist against fraud or improper payments. DESE said it conducts physical inspections, desk reviews, payment-system checks, and investigations as needed, and that it had not had findings in this area. Some members questioned whether DESE or DSS was the right home for early childhood programs, while others defended the partnership and the role of early educators in identifying child needs. A major portion of the discussion focused on early childhood special education and the child care subsidy program. DESE explained that First Steps serves children birth to age three, while early childhood special education covers ages three to five and is driven by IEP eligibility; members asked for more data on diagnoses, trends, and how many children come off IEPs. The committee also discussed the child care subsidy budget and the governor’s proposed shift to paying providers based on authorization and at the beginning of the month. DESE said the change is being piloted, that a wait list is expected to begin around March 1, and that a May rollout is being considered, but only if software testing and fiscal projections show the system is sustainable. Members expressed frustration that promised changes had been delayed and that providers had been told different timelines, while DESE said the delay was driven by software issues, fiscal caution, and the need to avoid repeating prior payment problems. The hearing ended with the committee in recess before later resuming discussion of the subsidy program; no final votes or actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, I'm not doing either one of those things anymore.
• This measure does not propose to do that. So this is not a tax on labor.
• I will not do that.
• not want to pay their employees or give them health care or good wages. giant corporations that do not
• We stand that child care providers do not pay more in taxes than large corporations.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

• That’s not the people doing the work.
• And the patients will not pay for services that were not provided.
• If you do a lot of uninsured and Medicaid, you do not have many Medicare patients, so you are not going
• Do you know that? Do you know that? I do not. Yeah, yeah, that's an important issue.
• Smith, do people just pay cash?

Committee: Senate Health & Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• And the employees do not know it.
• They were going to pay me $16 an hour. The pay was not weekly; the pay was every two weeks.
• not want to see people not paying their workers.
• But do we have something? Didn't pay their workers, and now the general is paying for it.
• they're guilty of not paying their workers?

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

Transcript Highlights:

• We're just not going to do it.
• Again, I do not.
• It was not everybody pays, Weather, something that people do.
• It was not everybody pays, not everybody pays income tax, everybody pays a utility bill.
• But, you know, people are going to be paying. I'm not privy to how they do it in Florida.

Committees: House Commerce , House Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment

Summary: The Commerce Committee held a public hearing on H.J.R. 174 and then H.J.R. 173, both constitutional resolutions sponsored by Speaker Patterson and described as steps toward modernizing Missouri’s tax system by eliminating the state individual income tax and broadening sales taxes. Patterson argued the current tax structure is outdated, said the proposal would let voters decide whether to move forward, and emphasized that future legislation would set the details and guardrails. He and supporters said the plan would increase disposable income, attract businesses and residents, and could help lower property and personal property taxes by directing broader sales-tax revenue to local governments. Committee members pressed him on whether the proposal was too open-ended, whether it could raise taxes on goods and services, and how it would affect schools, seniors, and low-income Missourians. Patterson repeatedly said the next General Assembly would decide exemptions and rates, and that the bill was only the first step. Opponents, including the Missouri Budget Project, AARP, the Missouri Association of Realtors, the Consumers Council of Missouri, and trial and defense lawyers, warned the proposal would shift the tax burden onto lower- and middle-income residents, seniors, and people who rely on services. They argued that broadening sales taxes would likely make the tax code more regressive, raise consumer costs, and create uncertainty because the bill does not spell out exemptions for items such as health care, real estate services, utilities, or legal services. The Missouri Budget Project said its modeling suggested the state could face a large revenue shortfall and that most Missourians would pay more overall. AARP said older Missourians, especially those on fixed incomes, would be hit hardest, while the Realtors and utility advocates focused on the risk of higher housing and energy costs. Legal-services witnesses said taxing professional services would raise client costs and add administrative complexity. Supporters countered that Missouri’s current system disadvantages wage earners and does not reflect modern commerce, especially digital and service-based transactions. Witnesses in favor included economists, business owners, tax-reform advocates, and former lawmakers, who said income taxes do the most damage to growth, that states without income taxes tend to attract people and investment, and that Missouri needs a more competitive tax environment to keep and attract younger workers and entrepreneurs. Some supporters also said the proposal could help reduce property taxes and broaden the tax base to include out-of-state consumers and online commerce. The committee heard testimony from both sides but took no final vote in the portion provided; the chair limited testimony and questions to three minutes each and then moved from H.J.R. 174 to the identical H.J.R. 173 for additional testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• In my district, I have smaller contractors complain about a lot: doing work and not getting paid.
• to pay, either through redlining items that the contractor just decides not to pay, could be between
• So because bonded projects are on the public prompt pay, private projects are not bonded.
• You don't pay somebody, the way I do it, you don't go back to work for them.
• I understand that may not work under a prompt pay large project. I get it.

Committee: House Joint Committee on Rural Economic Development

Summary: The committee first met in executive session and voted several bills do pass. House Bill 2409 was approved 14-0, House Bill 2654 was approved 15-0, and House Bill 2747 was approved after adoption of a House committee amendment and substitute, also by a 14-0 vote. The committee then moved into public hearing on House Bill 1915, which would regulate payment practices in private construction contracts. Representative David Castile, the sponsor, said the bill was intended to ensure timely payment to contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers, limit abusive contract clauses, and require written notice before withholding payment. He emphasized that it was aimed at larger private projects and not owner-occupied residential work. Testimony on HB 1915 was mixed. Supporters, including electrical, mechanical, and subcontractor associations, said delayed payment is common, especially for smaller firms, and argued the bill would improve cash flow and reduce the need for liens. Opponents, including general contractors and home builders, said the bill as filed was too restrictive, especially the seven-day downstream payment deadline and the limits on withholding and termination rights, and warned it could increase costs and burden small builders. Several witnesses said they were working with the sponsor on a committee substitute to more closely mirror Missouri’s public prompt pay law and to clarify the residential exemption. The committee then heard House Bill 2151, which would raise income eligibility limits for the Fast Track Workforce Incentive Grant from $40,000 to $50,000 for single filers and from $80,000 to $100,000 for joint filers. Representative Travis Wilson said the change was meant to reflect inflation and expand access for adults changing careers, apprentices, and other eligible students. Supporters from community colleges, chambers of commerce, and workforce groups said the program is working well, is budgeted, and helps fill workforce needs; one witness cited strong completion and retention rates among recipients. No opposition was presented, and the hearing concluded with adjournment of the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Not all of them do, certainly, but there are many.
• But we want, ideally, for customers to pay for what they're getting, not pay in advance for what future
• They do understand the unfairness of having to pay for something that's not serving them, that's intended
• Do you have a cost of what it will cost per household per year if we don't do QIP and they have to pay
• The government is telling them they have to pay more, and they can't really choose not to do it.

Committee: House Utilities

Transcript Highlights:

• What they are looking to do with this bill is actually quite simple: military retirement pay is not a
• This pay is not property.
• Um, and so that's what we're trying to do right now is we're trying to codify that this is pay and not
• </c> retainer pay is pay and not property. retainer pay is pay and not property.
• </c> would not be able to do that. would not be able to do that.

Committee: House Children and Family Law

Transcript Highlights:

• Cruz just mentioned that 50% of the cities are not doing it.
• There's a lot of them that's not doing it.
• Whom do you believe is paying those fees? Mr.
• I do not have a similar number for mobility.
• I don’t want to be, okay, because we’re willing to pay, and we do pay our share.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• because they said we do not want services taxed with sales tax.
• Not at this time. When do Democrats ever want to tax or cut taxes?
• This bill does not do what it's being accused of doing.
• If there's no business, that business is not paying taxes.
• So after three years, we do not have free rein.

Transcript Highlights:

• And when they don’t, they should pay the price, not the workers.
• That's not fair to people doing the work, and it's not fair to contractors who play by the rules.
• Do any members of the committee have questions? They do not.
• It is pretty well known within the industry who the bad guys are that do not pay their employees.
• Unlike many other construction trades, we do not do the same work in the shop as we do in the field.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development

Summary: The hearing focused on several labor-related bills, especially proposals to give legislative employees the right to organize and collectively bargain, close a prevailing wage loophole for off-site prefabrication work, and strengthen enforcement against wage theft. Committee chairs opened the hearing by explaining the hybrid format and asking witnesses to keep testimony brief. Multiple legislators testified in support of the legislative staff union bill, saying staff deserve the same bargaining rights as other public employees and that unionization would improve pay, benefits, retention, and workplace dignity. Witnesses also discussed how the bill would likely be structured, with separate House and Senate bargaining arrangements or locals, and emphasized that it would only create the option to unionize, not require it. A second major topic was the prevailing wage bill addressing off-site fabrication and prefabrication in construction. Union leaders, contractors, and workers described how more work is being shifted from job sites into shops, especially in sheet metal, HVAC, electrical, and pipefitting work, and argued that the law should treat that work the same as on-site construction when it is part of a public project. They said the current loophole lets some contractors underbid by paying lower wages off-site, while responsible contractors already pay prevailing wages in their shops. Supporters argued the bill would protect workers, preserve apprenticeship and training standards, improve safety and quality, and make enforcement easier through certified payroll and clearer definitions. The committee also heard testimony on wage theft legislation. Representative Dan Donahue, the Attorney General’s Fair Labor Division, AFL-CIO representatives, and carpenters’ union witnesses described wage theft, misclassification, labor brokers, and tax fraud as widespread problems that hurt workers, honest contractors, and public revenues. They supported giving the Attorney General stronger enforcement tools, adding contractor accountability up the subcontracting chain, and protecting workers from retaliation and from delays that can cause claims to expire. A separate witness supported a bill to extend the statute of limitations for Wage Act cases while AG investigations are pending, and another supported changes to help hospital workers enforce timely payment rights. No votes were taken during the hearing; witnesses repeatedly asked for favorable reports on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• Internet service providers do not pay for use of the right-of-way. phone and cable companies that we've
• My clients at Netflix and Hulu do not have any physical infrastructure in the ground, so we don't pay
• So the bill will not make any changes to who does and who does not pay franchise fees.
• We're going to do what we can to help. Don't pay the damn fee. Just do it. All right.
• Do they pay their property owners association? or do they pay their excessive water fee?

Bills: SB264 , SB542 , SB924 , SB1008 , SB1029 , SB1036 , SB1057 , SB1058 , SB1185 , SB1202 , SB1358 , SB1364 , SB1376 , SB1569 , SB1664 , SB1697 , SJR50

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• And so I would just caution that we not do that. And so I would just caution that we not do that.
• And so I would just caution that we not, we not do that.
• One: Do not increase costs to ratepayers.
• Is that like a fast pay, do you mean fast pay program? What is that?
• I do not think so. I know I'm not a lawyer, but that much I know.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• No, not if they're exempt under these statutes. They do not reimburse for the health insurance.
• No, not if they're exempt under these statutes. They do not reimburse for the health insurance.
• There are funds out there that do not pay that; you can find them in the news.
• </c><00:36:20.000><c> not</c><00:36:20.240><c> pay</c> are funds out there that do not pay are funds
• out there that do not pay that,<00:36:20.680><c> you</c><00:36:20.760><c> can</c><00:36:20.960><c> find

Summary: The committee held its first official interim meeting after merging the General Government and Finance, Personnel, and Public Retirement committees, establishing a quorum and opening with the pledge and prayer. Members then received a briefing from KPPA representatives Ryan Barrow and Aaron Sarock on the state retirement systems, including KERS, CERS, and SPRS, and on the importance of fully funding the actuarially determined employer contribution, supplemental appropriations, and investment earnings in reducing unfunded liabilities. They said the systems have made progress toward a statutory closed amortization target of 2049 and emphasized that supplemental funding lowers current employer contribution rates but does not change that end date. A major topic was federal and state reemployment-after-retirement rules for retirees who return to work with participating employers. KPPA explained that retirees must have a bona fide separation from service, no prearranged agreement to return, and generally a one-calendar-month break in service for retirees on or after January 1, 2024. If a member fails to comply, retirement benefits can be voided, payments stopped, health coverage ended, and benefits repaid. The presenters also noted that rehired retirees do not earn a second retirement account, and employers rehiring them must pay employer contributions and, in non-exempt cases, reimburse health insurance costs. Members asked about the scale of rehired retirees and the difference between employer contribution and health insurance reimbursement amounts. KPPA said that in fiscal year 2025 there were over 3,500 rehired retirees in CERS and over 5,000 in SPRS, with substantial employer contributions and health reimbursement payments collected. They also explained that some positions are exempt from these chargebacks, including school resource officers and certain law enforcement positions that meet statutory criteria. The committee discussed House Bill 213, which allows cities, sheriffs’ departments, and post-secondary institutions to offer health insurance to rehired officers if authorized by the governing body, effective August 1, 2026, and clarifies the fiscal-year basis for certain exemption limits. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• They do if they love their teachers. Okay. Alright, thank you, Senator. I'm not finished.
• So it's not in this bill, but I'm dealing with teacher pay in this bill.
• How do we get this to include art or special education that might not be the first step?'
• And do they pay you a fee to help them implement it? They do not pay us a dime.
• not pass, but that the committee substitute adopted in lieu thereof do pass and be printed.

Bills: SB26 , SB 26

Committees: Senate Education , Senate Education K-16

Transcript Highlights:

• to pay, ...either through redlining items that the contractor just decides not to pay, could be between
• If it’s not tightening the time, what can we do because payment is a problem in the industry?
• So because bonded projects are on the public prompt pay, private projects are not bonded.
• You don't pay somebody, the way I do it, you don't go back to work for them.
• I understand that may not work under a prompt pay, large project. I get it.

Committees: House Economic Development , House Joint Committee on Rural Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:

• And so I would just caution that we not do that. And so I would just caution that we not do that.
• And so I would just caution that we not, we not do that.
• One, do not increase costs to ratepayers.
• This is not a matter of ability to do it.
• I do not think so. I know I'm not a lawyer, but that much I know.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and broader options for reforming California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the scale of wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh trade-offs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described long delays in compensation, housing insecurity, and what they viewed as a system that protects utility shareholders more than victims. They urged greater transparency, clearer accountability for utility spending and safety performance, faster and fuller compensation for survivors, and reforms such as independent audits and better alignment of utility incentives with wildfire prevention and restitution. The second panel began with Tom Welsh of the California Earthquake Authority, who explained that the SB 254 report was intended as a broad inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations. He described the report’s process, including stakeholder submissions, workstreams, and a convergence process, and outlined the current wildfire fund structure: utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims after a covered wildfire, and the CPUC later determines prudency and possible reimbursement back to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon summarized compensation data, saying utilities paid about $38 billion between 2017 and 2024, with major shares going to injured parties, insurers, and public entities, while litigation costs and survivors’ own losses remain substantial. He noted that legal fees and delays reduce the amount survivors ultimately receive. Utility and public-interest witnesses offered differing views on the report’s pathways. PG&E’s Tyson Smith said the report shows inaction is the worst outcome and argued for community wildfire risk reduction, equitable allocation of catastrophe costs, and state-led resilience tools. LADWP’s Fernando Valero emphasized the vulnerability of municipal utilities and cities, and supported inverse condemnation reform, a state-sponsored liability insurance framework, damages and subrogation limits, and stronger insurance access. Consumer Attorneys of California’s John Fisk argued that IOU-caused fires are not natural disasters but the result of negligence and sometimes criminal conduct, and opposed reducing utility liability while supporting stronger oversight and audits. The Public Advocates Office’s Nathaniel Skinner focused on affordability, saying ratepayers already bear large and growing wildfire costs and warning against shifting more costs onto bills without measurable risk reduction and tighter accountability. Committee members then began questioning witnesses about what counts as measurable mitigation, how to define full and fair compensation, and how any fast-pay process should work.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do know that people are still paying $7.25.
• The market’s going to do it anyway. Why not just do it?”
• We're not talking about a wage scale. We're not talking about a pay scale.
• And so we're not, it's not necessarily a, we're doing this or doing that.
• You're not supposed to do that.

Committee: House Labor & Industrial Relations

Summary: The House Labor and Industrial Relations Committee met on April 9 and first took up Senate Bill 162, which would change the workers’ compensation medical treatment schedule appeal process. The bill, presented as a collaboration between the Attorney General’s office and trial lawyers, would require additional medical evidence submitted on appeal to be sent back to the medical director for review before court review continues. Members discussed the 30-day turnaround for the medical director and whether the process would delay injured workers’ cases. After testimony from injured workers’ representatives and support cards from several business and labor groups, the committee adopted the technical amendments and reported SB 162 favorably. The committee then heard House Bill 353, which would establish a state minimum wage beginning at $12 per hour in 2027, rising to $15 in 2029 and then indexed to inflation. Supporters, including the sponsor, Invest in Louisiana, the Workplace Justice Project, 10,000 Women Louisiana, the AFL-CIO, and a young witness from People’s Promise, argued that Louisiana’s wages have lagged behind costs of living, that many workers remain in poverty, and that the bill would help families, reduce reliance on public benefits, and improve economic stability. Opponents, including NFIB and small-business advocates, argued that the market should set wages, that the bill would raise labor costs, compress pay scales, reduce hours or hiring, and potentially increase prices. After extended debate, the committee voted and HB 353 failed. The committee next considered Senate Bill 383 on the incumbent worker training program. Senator Bass and Louisiana Works officials said the bill would expand and make the existing program more flexible, increase available funding, shorten the business eligibility period from three years to two, and allow unused funds to roll over. Members focused on how the program would reach workers, how businesses and employees would learn about training opportunities, and how it would support workforce development in growing regions. Support came from business and economic development groups, and the committee reported SB 383 favorably with amendments. Finally, the committee began Senate Bill 382, which would repeal the Workers’ Compensation Advisory Council, described as the Senate version of a bill the committee had already considered. The transcript cuts off during discussion of the prior vote on the similar House version, and no final action on SB 382 is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• But at the end of the day, just paying my technician however many hours it takes to do a job is not incentivizing
• Supporters of House Bill 1914 have claimed that manufacturers do not adequately pay the technicians for
• The third-party time guides generally do not do those repairs.
• The third-party time guides generally do not do those repairs.
• Yes, we do. You do? We do. Okay. So we have not. Have you ever wanted to?

Committees: House Emerging Issues , House Emerging Issues and Professional Registration

Transcript Highlights:

• But the issue is not, in our opinion, we looked at it, not with the pay plan.
• But the issue is not, in our opinion, we looked at it, not with the pay plan.
• So why don't we request funds to do that, or do you think that would help or would not help?
• But right now, I'm not sure, honestly, that it's necessarily the pay.
• We do not anticipate using it.

Committee: All ALC-PEER

Summary: The committee considered a series of appropriation, transfer, and review items, approving most requests in Sections B through J. These included temporary appropriations for state technology upgrades, personnel management, court reporters and interpreters, crime victim claims, juvenile sex offender assessments, radiation lab testing, higher education workforce grants, an ARPA grant for the UAFS LPN program, an IIJA grant for geological/critical minerals work, a restricted reserve transfer for 102 State Police vehicles, a transfer to the Arkansas Heroes Program, several cash fund requests for the Real Estate Commission HVAC and AV needs, and overtime appropriations for Emergency Management and Military. One budget classification transfer request from the Commissioner of State Lands for $250,000 to cover operating expenses tied to a new building was discussed at length but failed on the vote after questions about the lease and operating costs. A major portion of the meeting focused on a $25.7 million pay plan appropriation request for 15 agencies. Members questioned why the Department of Human Services had not requested additional pay-plan dollars for human development centers, where DHS acknowledged staffing shortages, high turnover, and heavy overtime but said the issue was not lack of pay-plan funding. DHS was asked to provide a written plan to address staffing problems. The Department of Corrections testified that the pay plan had improved retention and hiring, and committee members asked for follow-up data on vacancies and staffing outcomes. Members also clarified that the pay-plan request was appropriation only, not new funding, and approved it. The committee then reviewed fund reports, including the restricted reserve, Budget Stabilization Trust Fund, Tobacco Settlement, State Central Services, Education Adequacy, Medicaid Trust Fund, IIJA, and Revenue Services transfer reports. DHS and DFA were questioned closely about the Medicaid Trust Fund, with members noting a $90 million February draw and asking about projected year-end balances; DFA and DHS said February was a high-expense, low-revenue month and projected the fund would remain solvent through the fiscal year, ending between $150 million and $200 million, while a second $100 million set-aside is planned for FY27. The committee also discussed a state hospital damage report, where DHS explained that insurance proceeds would not fully cover the repair costs because of depreciation and the age of the buildings; members expressed concern that the state would recover far less than originally expected, and DHS said any additional insurance recovery would be limited and returned to restricted reserve.