Transcript Highlights:

• I think it does a nice job of summarizing general salary growth and putting it in a little bit of context
• Assuming a higher general salary growth assumption will impact the calculation of the liabilities of
• So this you can think of as the impact of changing the inflation and the general salary growth of both
• We adopt general salary... Is there a motion to adopt general salary growth of 3.5%? I move.
• Chair, just kind of ask, is there a general consensus?

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The committee approved the July minutes and then received an informational presentation from the Office of the State Actuary on the financial condition of the state retirement systems. The actuary reported that employer contribution rates are generally declining, helped by strong investment returns and reduced funding for PERS 1 and TERS 1, while funded ratios have continued to improve; on a combined basis the plans were reported at 100% funded in 2024, with open plans above 95% and legacy plans varying by system. The presentation also reviewed projected rates and funded ratios under current assumptions, noted that pension costs are taking a smaller share of the state general fund, and discussed risks from investment volatility, policy changes, and demographic experience. Committee members asked about savings from lower rates, deferred asset smoothing, and how Washington compares with other states. The committee then considered the state actuary’s recommendation on long-term economic assumptions and adopted all four recommendations by roll call votes: inflation at 3.0%, general salary growth at 3.5%, membership growth for Plan 1 funding at 1.0%, and investment rate of return at 7.25%. The actuaries explained that the inflation and salary growth increases were driven largely by higher long-term inflation expectations, while the investment return recommendation matched the current statutory assumption. Members discussed the timing of the Pension Funding Council’s decision, the effect of tariffs and inflation uncertainty, and how assumption changes would affect future contribution rates and budgets, particularly for open plans. Staff then gave an update on the LEOFF 1 study, explaining the difference between being “ahead of schedule” and truly overfunded, and summarizing responses received from DRS, the State Treasurer, and the State Investment Board on the merger and restatement proposals. DRS said both bills could be administered, though the merger bill’s COLA banking provision would be challenging until its new system is ready; the Treasurer urged caution, especially about the restatement bill and the use of one-time funds; and the Investment Board said removing assets from the trust would have some transaction costs but likely small impacts. The committee discussed whether to invite additional agencies and local government groups to testify, and staff said more responses, including from Ice Miller and the State Actuary, were expected for the October meeting. Finally, the committee heard a briefing on PERS 1/TERS 1 COLA policy and related bills from the last session. Staff reviewed the committee’s prior ongoing COLA recommendation, the SCPP-endorsed bills that would have created a one-time 3% COLA followed by an ongoing COLA, the Senate merger bill, and a separate ad hoc COLA bill. Public testimony largely supported Plan 1 COLAs and stable contribution rates, while several speakers urged caution about transferring LEOFF 1 surplus assets or merging legacy plans, and others raised concerns about climate risk and the pension fund’s investments. No further committee action was taken on the COLA item during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Brigadier retired Colonel Tom Stewart, General of Massachusetts.
• the duties of the Adjutant General.
• The Adjutant General, as currently defined under Chapter 33 of the Massachusetts General Laws, holds
• A question—not a question, more of an ask: S. 2501, An Act clarifying the duties of the Adjutant General
• Thank you, General. That's the last of the registered sign-ins.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs

Summary: The committee held a hybrid public hearing on seven House bills and seven Senate bills related to the Massachusetts National Guard and U.S. Armed Forces Reserves. Opening remarks covered hearing procedures, livestreaming, testimony limits, and expected reporting dates, and chairs noted the committee’s focus on Guard and Reserve issues. Testimony then moved through several bills, including S. 2465 to expand the National Guard welcome-home veterans bonus to all deployed Guard members regardless of residency, H. 3876/S. 2462 to authorize military-style headstones for long-serving or deceased Guard members, and S. 2482/H. 3833 to establish a Massachusetts National Guard Museum in Salem. Supporters of the bonus and headstone bills argued they would correct inequities and better honor service; Senator Lovely described the museum proposal as a way to preserve the Guard’s history in Salem and potentially support federal funding for the project. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 3829/S. 2471, the “Defend the Guard” proposal that would bar Massachusetts National Guard deployments into active combat absent a formal congressional declaration of war. Supporters argued the bill would restore constitutional war powers, reduce repeated undeclared deployments, and protect Guard members’ mental health and state readiness. Opponents, including retired Guard leaders and current service members, warned it could conflict with federal law and Title 10 authority, undermine federal funding and training, and harm readiness, force structure, and unique Guard capabilities. Committee members repeatedly questioned the bill’s legal authority, constitutional basis, and practical effects under the Supremacy Clause and Title 10, and several witnesses were asked to submit additional written legal support. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3831, which would extend Chapter 115 benefits to currently serving Guard and Reserve members who do not meet federal veteran-status thresholds, and on related proposals to clarify Guard command structure and the duties of the Adjutant General. Supporters said these changes would improve access to benefits, reduce confusion in the chain of command, and strengthen discipline and responsiveness. Separately, the National Guard Association of Massachusetts backed H. 3860/S. 2458, the Guard Enlistment Enhancement Program, as a recruiting tool, while opposing the Defend the Guard bills. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> generating at each one the capacity of generating at each one the capacity of the<00:03:53.840><
• You know, part of the idea of the renewable energy standard was to generate all of those multiplier effects
• </c> of electricity at the point of of electricity at the point of generations<01:22:27.320><c> the</
• > but</c> generations the point of generation but generations the point of generation but the<01:22:28.840
• generations with a legacy<01:29:46.719><c> of</c> legacy of legacy of contamination<01:29:48.719><c>

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate

Transcript Highlights:

• generalized purposes of infrastructure development and for the development that's already occurred in
• They generate millions of dollars in economic activity.
• But of equal importance is that these events generate significant revenues for the state of California
• Of equal importance is that these events generate significant revenues for the state of California, south
• Our view is that the replacement of human actors with computer-generated synthetics, perhaps trained

Committee: House Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism

Transcript Highlights:

• The additional 2% scenario includes any agency-specific general fund rescission of up to a total of 5%
• This results in a reduction of 112,157,500 from the general fund, with the FTPE reduced by a total of
• This results in a reduction of $129,345,700 from the general fund, with FTP reduced by a total of 169.92
• Now, that's not all general fund; $53 million of that is general fund.
• Now, that's not all general fund aspect, $53 million of that general fund aspect.

Summary: The committee first received a briefing on the updated “green sheet” budget materials and how to read the FY 2027 columns, along with a review of several bills with fiscal impacts, including HB 503, HB 556, HB 559, and HB 578. Staff explained where the documents could be found online and answered questions about the timing and size of the bills’ fiscal effects, including the tax conformity bill and county jail reimbursement changes. The main business was the 2026 Idaho Budget Rescissions Act. Members debated whether to adopt the governor’s 3% rescission, add an additional 1% reduction, or add an additional 2% reduction. Supporters of deeper cuts argued the state needed structural balance, a larger ending balance, and a response to revenue uncertainty and the pending tax conformity bill. Opponents said across-the-board cuts were too blunt, could harm Medicaid, education, public safety, and other programs, and should be handled agency by agency. The committee first rejected the 1% and 2% substitute motions, then approved the governor’s 3% rescission motion on a due-pass recommendation. The committee then approved a transfer of $22,366,500 from the Public School Income Fund to the General Fund, with the motion passing after a roll call vote. It next took up statewide decisions, starting with ongoing base reductions for selected state agencies. After debate over whether the reductions should be 3%, 4%, or 5%, the committee rejected the higher-cut substitutes and approved the governor’s 3% base reduction recommendation. Members emphasized that the work groups would still have flexibility to adjust individual agency budgets later. Finally, the committee considered personnel benefit cost increases for FY 2027. Staff explained the proposed health insurance and other variable-rate adjustments, and members debated whether to use the governor’s recommendation or a DOGE Working Group recommendation that slightly changed the funding mix and total. The governor’s recommendation was defended as more consistent with prior employee-benefit review practice, while supporters of the DOGE proposal said it would tighten legislative control over funding. The governor’s recommendation was ultimately rejected, and the committee moved on after the roll call votes on the competing motions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Brigadier General Army the rank of Brigadier General Army the rank of Brigadier General Army receives
• National Guard promotion rank of National Guard promotion rank of Brigadier General Army receives a
• National Guard promotion rank of National Guard promotion rank of Brigadier General Army receives a
• Val to the Alabama National Guard rank of major general National Guard rank of major general National
• vote of 13 eyes and favorable report vote of 13 eyes and zero nays from finance and taxation general

Bills: SCR 4 , SCR 18 , SCR 43 , SB 227 , SB 269 , SB 330 , SB 434 , SB 437 , SB 438 , SB 463 , SB 528 , SB 584 , SB 604 , SB 663 , SB 668 , SB 682 , SB 747 , SB 841 , SB 912 , SB 968 , SB 1013 , SB 1020 , SB 1044 , SB 1137 , SB 1138 , SB 1143 , SB 1164 , SB 1169 , SB 1200 , SB 1236 , SB 1244 , SB 1299 , SB 1325 , SB 1335 , SB 1369 , SB 1410 , SB 1418 , SB 1422 , SB 1455 , SB 1468 , SB 1495 , SB 1534 , SB 1579 , SB 1580 , SB 1612 , SB 1624 , SB 1667 , SB 1734 , SB 1745 , SB 1746 , SB 1760 , SB 1784 , SB 1860 , SB 1862 , SB 1864 , SB 1896 , SB 1898 , SB 1920 , SB 1940 , SB 1952 , SB 1998 , SB 1999 , SB 2004 , SB 2032 , SB 2052 , SB 2068 , SB 2073 , SB 2121 , SB 2127 , SB 2141 , SB 2145 , SB 2161 , SB 2167 , SB 2196 , SB 2207 , SB 2216 , SB 2246 , SB 2323 , SB 2332 , SB 2395 , SB 2429 , SB 2431 , SB 2439 , SB 2443 , SB 2581 , SB 2601 , SB 2629 , SB 2702 , SB 2705 , SB 2717 , SB 2798 , SB 2873 , SB 2881 , SB 2964 , SB 3034 , SCR 4 , SCR 38 , SB 39 , SB 227 , SB 240 , SB 330 , SB 401 , SB 407 , SB 467 , SB 506 , SB 512 , SB 527 , SB 584 , SB 618 , SB 619 , SB 636 , SB 648 , SB 663 , SB 715 , SB 732 , SB 758 , SB 801 , SB 843 , SB 847 , SB 870 , SB 957 , SB 1013 , SB 1020 , SB 1065 , SB 1152 , SB 1164 , SB 1181 , SB 1183 , SB 1257 , SB 1283 , SB 1299 , SB 1325 , SB 1349 , SB 1395 , SB 1433 , SB 1455 , SB 1490 , SB 1558 , SB 1574 , SB 1624 , SB 1626 , SB 1640 , SB 1717 , SB 1718 , SB 1727 , SB 1734 , SB 1756 , SB 1757 , SB 1789 , SB 1832 , SB 1845 , SB 1868 , SB 1920 , SB 1924 , SB 1964 , SB 2004 , SB 2018 , SB 2031 , SB 2037 , SB 2052 , SB 2073 , SB 2075 , SB 2080 , SB 2111 , SB 2117 , SB 2154 , SB 2161 , SB 2196 , SB 2206 , SB 2253 , SB 2268 , SB 2322 , SB 2323 , SB 2349 , SB 2533 , SB 2540 , SB 2570 , SB 2623 , SB 2626 , SB 2658 , SB 2660 , SB 2692 , SB 2705 , SB 2717 , SB 2722 , SB 2742 , SB 2743 , SB 2753 , SB 2788 , SB 2877 , SB 2900 , SB 2920 , SB 3031 , SB 5 , SB 260 , SB 1786 , SB 1 , HJR 4 , HB 135 , HB 1109 , SJR 36 , SJR 50 , SJR 63 , SJR 84 , SJR 59 , SCR 12 , SCR 39 , SCR 38 , SCR 4 , SCR 18 , SCR 43 , SCR 46 , SCR 48 , SCR 19 , SB 2023 , SB 1257 , SB 240 , SB 1727 , SB 870 , SB 618 , SB 62 , SB 666 , SB 847 , SB 284 , SB 854 , SB 1073 , SB 810 , SB 1505 , SB 583 , SB 1502 , SB 507 , SB 1026 , SB 1349 , SB 1433 , SB 1434 , SB 1376 , SB 1585 , SB 1772 , SB 2016 , SB 1163 , SB 619 , SB 1122 , SB 732 , SB 731 , SB 397 , SB 508 , SB 1436 , SB 287 , SB 261 , SB 1882 , SB 393 , SB 1791 , SB 529 , SB 209 , SB 2429 , SB 1999 , SB 511 , SB 2309 , SB 510 , SB 1860 , SB 2037 , SB 1924 , SB 2253 , SB 2018 , SB 2206 , SB 1299 , SB 841 , SB 668 , SB 584 , SB 1085 , SB 2431 , SB 1490 , SB 1868 , SB 2314 , SB 434 , SB 2046 , SB 1667 , SB 2127 , SB 1975 , SB 1760 , SB 1734 , SB 1335 , SB 2246 , SB 2439 , SB 1624 , SB 1244 , SB 1468 , SB 2717 , SB 1612 , SB 1262 , SB 604 , SB 2395 , SB 1832 , SB 1745 , SB 1746 , SB 2207 , SB 1784 , SB 1524 , SB 528 , SB 437 , SB 269 , SB 1137 , SB 968 , SB 636 , SB 747 , SB 1325 , SB 1455 , SB 2056 , SB 1940 , SB 2052 , SB 1579 , SB 2068 , SB 3034 , SB 1920 , SB 1558 , SB 1236 , SB 1044 , SB 884 , SB 463 , SB 227 , SB 517 , SB 1200 , SB 1410 , SB 1626 , SB 1845 , SB 1863 , SB 2216 , SB 2681 , SB 1717 , SB 2141 , SB 2323 , SB 2200 , SB 2332 , SB 2199 , SB 1757 , SB 2050 , SB 1138 , SB 2458 , SB 1864 , SB 2201 , SB 1862 , SB 1055 , SB 2660 , SB 1898 , SB 2662 , SB 2161 , SB 2964 , SB 2881 , SB 1065 , SB 801 , SB 2743 , SB 2533 , SB 2073 , SB 3014 , SB 3013 , SB 2702 , SB 2629 , SB 2443 , SB 2349 , SB 2167 , SB 2145 , SB 2121 , SB 758 , SB 648 , SB 647 , SB 512 , SB 438 , SB 1721 , SB 2268 , SB 1495 , SB 2705 , SB 2366 , SB 1422 , SB 1369 , SB 1013 , SB 682 , SB 2692 , SB 2570 , SB 2797 , SB 2111 , SB 1896 , SB 1164 , SB 1020 , SB 663 , SB 2371 , SB 1152 , SB 2196 , SB 2383 , SB 2581 , SB 2798 , SB 330 , SB 646 , SB 843 , SB 1998 , SB 1418 , SB 2788 , SB 1169 , SB 2873 , SB 1754 , SB 1534 , SB 1718 , SB 2779 , SB 2004 , SB 1143 , SB 1756 , SB 912 , SB 2119 , SB 2032 , SB 527 , SB 1580 , SB 1952 , SB 2601 , SB 2322 , SB 2448 , SB 1777 , SB 1283 , SB 407 , SB 2392 , SB 2076 , SB 2786 , SB 3031 , SB 2877 , SB 2876 , SB 2284 , SB 2225 , SB 1540 , SB 2920 , SB 2929 , SB 1395 , SB 1972 , SB 2540 , SB 1183 , SB 2742 , SB 2595 , SB 2217 , SB 2117 , SB 715 , SB 2330 , SB 1964 , SB 1383 , SB 500 , SB 1640 , SB 39 , SB 2001 , SB 2080 , SB 2722 , SB 506 , SB 2514 , SB 2623 , SB 2658 , SB 1574 , SB 2900 , SB 2753 , SB 2398 , SB 401 , SB 1241 , SB 2927 , SB 2173 , SB 2538 , SB 898 , SB 467 , SB 1449 , SB 2529 , SB 1531 , SB 2846 , SB 2476 , SB 2031 , SB 986 , SB 1181 , SB 2075 , SB 2154 , SB 2864 , SB 31 , SB 2880 , SB 1359 , SB 2386 , SB 771 , SB 2844 , SB 2550 , SB 1351 , SB 1423 , SB 1931 , SB 2245 , SB 2589 , SB 2707 , SB 2807 , SB 2351 , SB 410 , SB 659 , SB 816 , SB 2776 , SB 2693 , SB 2580 , SB 1980 , SB 1886 , SB 1234 , SB 739 , SB 482 , SB 456 , SB 127 , SB 1666 , SB 2843 , SB 2801 , SB 800 , SB 2055 , SB 784 , SB 2986 , SB 735 , SB 1012 , SB 324 , SB 2926 , SB 2938 , SB 2007 , SB 2138 , SB 1242 , SB 843 , SB 1152 , SB 1164 , SB 1299 , SB 1349 , SB 1868 , SB 2037 , SB 2349 , SB 2788 , SB 39 , SB 1183 , SB 1717 , SB 1832 , SB 2743 , SR 429 , SR 432 , SCR 38 , SB 39 , SB 240 , SB 618 , SB 870 , SB 1183 , SB 1257 , SB 1717 , SB 1727 , SB 1832 , SB 2743 , SB 2 , SB 3058 , SB 3059 , HB 6 , HB 14 , HB 43 , HB 100 , HB 136 , HB 149 , HB 204 , HB 206 , HB 307 , HB 467 , HB 685 , HB 1130 , HB 1393 , HB 1644 , HB 2027 , HB 2118 , HB 2176 , HB 2468 , HB 2488 , HB 2525 , HB 2596 , HB 2890 , HB 2894 , HB 3077 , HB 3114 , HB 3204 , SCR 4 , SCR 18 , SCR 43 , SB 269 , SB 330 , SB 434 , SB 437 , SB 438 , SB 463 , SB 528 , SB 604 , SB 663 , SB 668 , SB 682 , SB 747 , SB 841 , SB 912 , SB 968 , SB 1020 , SB 1044 , SB 1138 , SB 1143 , SB 1236 , SB 1244 , SB 1325 , SB 1335 , SB 1369 , SB 1418 , SB 1422 , SB 1455 , SB 1468 , SB 1495 , SB 1534 , SB 1579 , SB 1580 , SB 1612 , SB 1624 , SB 1667 , SB 1734 , SB 1745 , SB 1746 , SB 1760 , SB 1784 , SB 1860 , SB 1862 , SB 1864 , SB 1896 , SB 1898 , SB 1920 , SB 1940 , SB 1952 , SB 1998 , SB 2032 , SB 2052 , SB 2068 , SB 2073 , SB 2121 , SB 2127 , SB 2141 , SB 2145 , SB 2161 , SB 2167 , SB 2196 , SB 2207 , SB 2216 , SB 2246 , SB 2323 , SB 2332 , SB 2395 , SB 2431 , SB 2439 , SB 2443 , SB 2581 , SB 2601 , SB 2629 , SB 2702 , SB 2705 , SB 2798 , SB 2873 , SB 2881 , SB 2964 , SB 3034 , SB 227 , SB 584 , SB 1013 , SB 1137 , SB 1169 , SB 1200 , SB 1299 , SB 1410 , SB 1999 , SB 2004 , SB 2429 , SB 2717 , SB 3058 , SB 3059 , HB 6 , HB 14 , HB 43 , HB 100 , HB 136 , HB 149 , HB 204 , HB 206 , HB 307 , HB 467 , HB 685 , HB 1130 , HB 1393 , HB 1644 , HB 2027 , HB 2118 , HB 2176 , HB 2468 , HB 2488 , HB 2525 , HB 2596 , HB 2890 , HB 2894 , HB 3077 , HB 3114 , HB 3204

Transcript Highlights:

• Generally accepted auditing standards and the statutes of other inspectors general and auditors allow
• , not having an inspector general on board, all of those kinds of things.
• So, um, Inspector General on board, all of those kinds of things.
• That was the whole point of creating the Inspector General.
• It is at the discretion of the Inspector General.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't generate any of our own real money.
• prep work for the general and spend a lot of money in advance.
• Because October 1, we do a lot of prep work for the general and spend a lot of money in advance of the
• Could you give me a percentage of your $92 million, how that is part of the general fund?
• Could you give me a percentage of your $92 million, how that is part of the general fund?

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met to review how county budgets are developed and how constitutional officers fit into that process. Davin Suggs of the Florida Association of Counties gave an overview of county budgeting, explaining the statutory framework, the role of property taxes and TRIM notices, the fiscal-year timeline, fund balances and reserves, and the Department of Revenue’s oversight. He emphasized that county budgets include the board’s budget plus the budgets of constitutional officers, and that relationships and communication are critical to resolving budget issues. A panel of constitutional officers then described their offices’ budget processes and responsibilities: Escambia County Sheriff Chip Simmons discussed law enforcement budgeting and the importance of negotiated agreements with county commissions; Alachua County Property Appraiser Aisha Solomon explained the June 1 budget deadline, valuation methods, and the appeal process for property assessments; Manatee County Clerk and Comptroller Angelina Coleniso outlined the clerk’s court and finance duties, the county-side budget process, and the clerk’s personal liability under section 129.09 for unlawful expenditures; Leon County Supervisor of Elections Mark Early described the cyclical nature of election costs, staffing, equipment, and the impact of turnout and election law changes; and Columbia County Tax Collector Kyle Keene explained that tax collectors’ budgets are reviewed by the Department of Revenue, with fee offices funding themselves through service charges and budget offices relying on county support. Members asked about personal liability for unlawful spending, conflicts between clerks and county commissions, property valuation and storm damage adjustments, reserve levels, and whether tax collectors can retain excess fees. Responses noted that clerks must refuse illegal expenditures, property appraisers use market-based assessments with VAB and court review available, counties should maintain healthy fund balances for cash flow and emergencies, and tax collectors generally must zero out year-end balances and distribute excess revenues to taxing authorities. The committee took no votes and adjourned after thanking the panelists for their testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't think you're out of line. I mean, 27%—that's kind of consistent with companies in general.
• data, one year of general fund transfer would cover the cost of their mitigation, right?
• The disposal of concentrate generated during desalination is authorized under Chapter 26 of the Water
• that we have and then the pressure of data center growth in general, what kind of power does desal?
• Returning even 20% of the severance taxes generated from this region back into Midland or 20% of the

Committee: Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• , but for one-time funding out of the general fund.
• same type of categorization, but for one-time funding out of the general fund.
• The same type of categorization, but for one-time funding out of the general fund.
• Do they need 60% if you're generating this kind of money?
• So it was AI behind some of the generation. And then can you remind us of what authority you have?

Summary: The committee met as the Commerce and Legal Services Division and first approved the minutes, then received a Legislative Council overview of the Attorney General’s current budget status and a blue-sheet summary of the AG’s base budget for the next biennium. Staff highlighted compliance with legislative intent items, including FTE changes, one-time funding updates, litigation pool spending, opioid settlement receipts, and continuing appropriations. Members asked about specific funds such as the Missing Indigenous People Grant Fund and the Internet Crimes Investigation Fund, and staff explained the statutory basis and status of those items. The Attorney General’s office then presented an extensive overview of its divisions and budget pressures. Chief Deputy Attorney General Clare Ness described the office’s 14 divisions, the role of the office in defending the state and recouping funds, and concerns about attorney pay, recruitment, and retention. Members discussed whether attorney salaries should be benchmarked across state government and whether more legal work could be centralized in the AG’s office. The office also described challenges with the new-and-vacant FTE pool, operating expense cuts, leased office space, and the criminal justice information systems used to connect law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts. The Crime Laboratory director gave a detailed update on space and infrastructure problems, saying the current lab is overcrowded and outdated, with safety, workflow, air-handling, glycol leak, alarm, and maintenance issues that can delay casework and risk evidence integrity. She said a 2024 study projected a need for a much larger facility and that the preferred option would be a new building on the current health department site, at an estimated cost of roughly $40 million to $45 million. She also reported that backlogs have improved significantly in DNA, firearms, fingerprint, and drug cases, though toxicology had recently developed a small backlog after an air compressor failure. The Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, gaming division, and BCI also provided updates. MFCU’s new director said the unit is federally funded 75/25, focuses on fraud, abuse, and neglect, and is seeking two attorney hires while continuing to work with federal partners on cases and recertification. Gaming staff reported continued growth in charitable gaming and electronic pull-tab activity, with concerns about site competition, large trust balances, possible ineligible expenditures, and the need for more scrutiny as revenues have grown. BCI outlined its staffing, drug task forces, ICAC work, and the Missing Indigenous Person Task Force, which is using its $250,000 appropriation to help tribal nations develop emergency response plans and purchase alerting tools such as IPAWS. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the attorney general for the state of Minnesota.
• That helped generate the mayhem that happened at that Truck Park and cost the life of Marisha Wy.
• >> Yeah, Attorney General. >> None. These are the numbers of unserialized weapons found.
• ><00:30:50.000><c> general</c><00:30:50.320><c> context</c><00:30:50.640><c> of</c> general again in
• the general context of general again in the general context of gun<00:30:51.120><c> violence</c><00:30

Transcript Highlights:

• to higher levels of care that are the goals of this program, and an estimate of the savings being generated
• to higher levels of care that are the goals of this program, and an estimate of the savings being generated
• from the number. goals of this program and an estimate of the savings being generated from from this
• I think everybody is with this failure of the Next Generation 911.
• The next generation infrastructure is currently providing all 450 911 centers with a full of, Next Generation

Transcript Highlights:

• First of all, the federal subsidies per unit of electricity generated for natural gas in natural gas
• unification of the subsidization of whatever generation portfolio, whether it's what you alluded or
• Dispatchable electric generation facilities are eligible for this program as a means of encouraging generation
• Again, we kind of look at the last bill of, is this another program to incentivize generation?
• These events consistently draw tens of thousands of attendees, generating significant economic activity

Bills: SB913 , SB1086 , SB1087 , SB1143 , SB1534 , SB1553 , SB1718 , SB1754 , SB2004 , SB2322 , SB2448

Committee: Senate Economic Development

Summary: The Senate Economic Development Committee met to hear a series of bills and informational primers, with several resource witnesses from the Governor’s Office, the Texas Workforce Commission, and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The chair opened by noting the death of Senator King’s son and asking members to keep the family in their prayers. Most bills were laid out and left pending subject to the call of the chair after brief author presentations and public testimony. The committee heard several local hotel occupancy tax bills: SB 1553 for Kerr County, SB 1086 for Childress County, SB 1087 for Mason County, and SB 913 for Alpine. Supporters, including the Texas Hotel and Lodging Association and local officials, said the measures would allow counties or the city to use hotel tax revenue for tourism-related projects and local development. The committee also heard SB 1534, which would direct a study on health physics education and workforce needs in Texas; resource witnesses from TWC and THECB testified on the bill. All of these measures were left pending. A major portion of the hearing focused on SB 1754, which would prohibit local tax abatements for renewable energy facilities selling power at wholesale, with an exception for certain battery storage tied to dispatchable generation. The bill drew strong support from witnesses who argued counties should not subsidize wind and solar projects that can harm neighboring landowners and that renewables already receive substantial federal support. Opponents from the solar and storage industry argued the bill would remove a voluntary local economic development tool, raise power prices, and discourage investment. Senators also debated landowner impacts, grid reliability, and whether the bill was the right policy tool; the bill was left pending. The committee also heard SB 2322, a committee substitute related to the Jobs, Energy, Technology, and Innovation Act, which would exempt electric generation facilities from the program’s compelling-factor test so they can qualify for school tax limitation agreements. Supporters said the change would correct an unintended barrier for dispatchable generation, while Senator Johnson argued it would weaken the program’s purpose by subsidizing projects that would locate in Texas anyway. SB 1718 would add the NRA annual meeting to the major events reimbursement program; the NRA supported it, while gun violence prevention advocates opposed using state incentives for the organization. SB 2004 would add the Arlington Grand Prix to the major events program, and SB 2448 would create a rural workforce development grant program; both drew supportive testimony and were left pending. The committee also heard SB 1143, a substitute bill aimed at improving transparency and coordination in programs serving opportunity youth ages 14 to 24, with witnesses supporting better reporting and workforce alignment. At the end of the meeting, Senator Johnson moved that the committee stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are 53 general aviation airports in the state of Kentucky.
• There are 53 general aviation airports in the state of Kentucky.
• Um, a lot of our general aviation airports are experiencing becoming emergency hubs.
• Um, a lot of our general preparedness.
• </c><01:14:00.000><c> of</c> prepare for the next generation of prepare for the next generation of pilots

Summary: The subcommittee approved the October 15 minutes and observed a moment of silence for the victims of the UPS Worldport plane crash. The main presentation was from Transportation Cabinet Commissioner Bobby Joe Lewis on the Local Assistance Road Program/County Priority Projects Program (LAARP/CPP), which was implemented under House Bill 546 and now requires rehabilitation projects to restore roads to original condition, cap funding at $500,000 per project, use a new scoring matrix, include a local match, and submit one photograph per 300 feet of project length. He reported that the 2026-2027 cycle ran from June 1 to October 1 and drew 1,215 project applications from 107 counties and 106 cities, with total submitted project costs of about $121.1 million and about $102.3 million requested after local match. He also said 30% of submissions scored 10s and 22% scored 9s, and that the list of requests and required photos had been submitted to the General Assembly and LRC. Members asked about how scores change over time, whether roads can move from lower scores to 10s, and whether the new process gives a better picture of local needs. Lewis said scores can change based on weather and road conditions, but the new system provides more information and a more standardized evaluation than before. Several members raised concerns about the volume and size of required photographs, suggesting drone footage or video as an alternative; Lewis said the photo requirement has caused confusion and large file uploads, and he was open to considering easier ways to document conditions. Members also discussed continuity in scoring across districts, and Lewis explained that district staff appointed by chief district engineers use a handbook and scoring matrix, with the scores entered into a computer system so evaluators do not see the final score while scoring. The committee also discussed funding levels and carry-forward balances for the program. Lewis said the program began with $20 million authorized in HR92, noted underruns from completed projects, and reported a carry-forward amount that had grown to $355,432.42 available for reauthorization as of October 13. In response to questions, he said the current process concentrates applications into a short window, with 63% of applications arriving in the last few days and 417 on October 1, which created a heavy workload but was completed on time. The meeting then moved to multimodal funding priorities, with Jennifer Kersner of Kentuckians for Better Transportation introducing herself and offering condolences for the UPS aviation incident before beginning her remarks.

Transcript Highlights:

• Ten percent of the department's appropriation is from the general fund.
• general fund, prior to the work that we've done, our general fund was probably about 9.9% of our budget
• In fact, I think this year we reduced the overall draw on the general fund by 15% of our budget.
• it was more of a common support type of item, and we were able to reduce the general fund that way as
• The first item is a cash transfer of $33.7 million to the general fund in the current fiscal year.

Summary: The committee heard budget presentations for the Department of Administration and the Permanent Building Fund. For Administration, analysts reviewed the agency’s divisions, staffing, dedicated-fund structure, recent budget growth, and the governor’s and JFAC’s recommended changes. The department requested shifts of utility costs from the general fund to dedicated funds, three new positions and funding for Medicaid procurement and contract management, transfers of some positions between divisions, and one-time IT replacement funding. Members also discussed office-space utilization, vacant buildings and land at Chinden and elsewhere, and the department’s efforts to consolidate space and reduce general fund reliance. Director Bailey said the department has reduced or repurposed positions, closed duplicate printing operations, is exploring digital workflows and AI tools, and is trying to move toward a fully dedicated-fund model. He also explained the decision to remove GLP-1 weight-loss coverage from the state health plan due to rapidly rising costs, while noting diabetes coverage remains in place. Committee members questioned the need for higher-level procurement staff for Medicaid contracts, the role of Deloitte and the Department of Health and Welfare in the process, and the status of the MMIS procurement, which Bailey said is currently stayed by the courts after a legal challenge from the second-place vendor. He said the delay will affect MMIS implementation and, in turn, the timing of the broader managed care rollout. Members also asked about vacant state office space, the possible sale of older buildings, and whether agencies such as ITD and Health and Welfare could be moved into state-owned space to reduce lease costs. Bailey said the department is actively working on those facility-planning questions and that agencies at Chinden are paying rent for occupied space. The committee then reviewed the Permanent Building Fund budget, which finances state construction, repairs, and deferred maintenance through dedicated revenue sources and interest earnings. Analysts highlighted the fund’s multi-year project structure, the large deferred maintenance program funded in prior years, and a proposed one-time transfer of $33.75 million in canceled capital project balances to the general fund. They also described a possible redirection of fiscal year 2027 interest earnings to the general fund and a recommended new capital project for an Idaho National Guard readiness center. Administrator Barard reported that the Division of Public Works is managing 595 active projects, with most FY 2025 projects under construction, in design, or complete, and said the division continues to face labor shortages and rising construction costs. Members asked about canceled projects, including the North Idaho reentry center, the Carnegie Library purchase, the ISU pedestrian crossing, the Idaho State Police Lewiston facility, and other projects; staff said some are unlikely to return soon, while others may come back once land or other prerequisites are secured. The committee concluded the hearing and announced it would meet the next day for the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Office of the State Public Defender.

Transcript Highlights:

• of General funds we know every dollar of General funds we spend<01:12:31.320><c> we</c><01:12:31.600
• </c> couple of the high the highest generally couple of the high the highest generally funded<01:13:04.880
• </c><01:16:18.000><c> of</c><01:16:18.280><c> of</c> the general fund portion um of of of the general
• On this slide, you will see that in 15 accounts of HHS, it approximates about 77% of all of the general
• c> would</c> the amount of General funds that would the amount of General funds that would be<02:03:22.159

Summary: The meeting began as a Division 3 work session on HB 71, but much of the early discussion focused on whether a previously discussed non-germane amendment could be considered or voted on that day. Members and the chair debated process and notice requirements, and the clerk’s guidance was that the amendment needed a separate public hearing before the full Finance Committee. The amendment was described as requiring DHHS contracts and addenda to include compliance with the Patient Bill of Rights, with a repeal date so the requirement would expire on November 30, 2026. The motion to move OTP on HB 71 with the amendment was withdrawn, and the committee agreed the amendment would be scheduled for a future full Finance hearing instead. The committee then turned to HB 71 itself and heard testimony from DHHS representatives John Williams and Jenny O’Higgins on the fiscal note and policy implications. Members questioned the estimate that the bill could put $12 million to $18 million per year in federal funding at risk, including HUD and Office of Refugee Resettlement funds. DHHS explained that the estimate was based on a broad reading of the bill’s term “specified alien,” which they said was not clearly defined in the bill, so they analyzed it using the federal definition of “alien” and assumed the bill could affect lawfully present non-citizens as well as undocumented individuals. They said the figure represented a worst-case scenario and that they were not claiming the loss was certain. Members also pressed DHHS on whether the bill could affect emergency sheltering in schools, public academies, or institutions of higher learning during disasters. DHHS said the language could create conflicts with federal funding conditions because emergency shelter programs generally cannot impose barriers on who may be sheltered, and they warned that excluding certain people could affect refugee-related and HUD funding. Questions were raised about whether the bill’s language would apply to private institutions as well as public ones, and whether the state could still use schools in short-term emergencies. DHHS said the language was broad, that they could not answer every legal question definitively, and that they would need input from public health and legal staff. No final vote on HB 71 was taken in the portion provided; the committee remained in discussion/work session mode after the amendment motion was withdrawn.

Transcript Highlights:

• of new generation to 1750 megawatts of new generation to support<00:28:54.159><c> economic</c><00:28:
• </c><00:41:15.599><c> and</c> of generation and its efficiency and of generation and its efficiency and
• </c> that when we're factoring cost of that when we're factoring cost of generation<00:42:10.400><c>
• And I can talk generation side of it.
• It was cheap and was tons of generation.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the minutes from the previous meeting, and then heard a presentation from LG&E and KU representatives Caroline Clark and John Bevington on economic development, energy demand, and the utility’s role in supporting Kentucky’s growth. Bevington described the company’s service territory, generation fleet, and recent economic development activity, including 76 projects supported in 2024, more than $2.8 billion in private investment, and over 3,000 new jobs. He emphasized that data centers are now the dominant driver in the pipeline, with 22 data center projects representing about 8.7 of the 9.7 gigawatts of potential demand, alongside other manufacturing and commercial projects. A major focus was how data centers choose sites and how utilities respond. Bevington explained that hyperscale data centers typically approach utilities first because they need transmission-level access, and that utilities then conduct internal analyses, estimate infrastructure needs, and require financial security before proceeding. He said the company is working through formal transmission studies and long-lead infrastructure planning, and noted that Kentucky’s sales tax exemption for data centers helped attract interest. He also outlined the economic benefits of data centers, citing an announced Louisville project of 525 megawatts and about $11 billion in investment, with an estimated $500 million in new tax revenue over 10 years, plus broader job and GDP impacts. Members asked about whether data centers could generate their own power, the reliability of the pipeline numbers given confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements, and cybersecurity concerns. Bevington said the company does not assume all pipeline projects will materialize in Kentucky and instead assigns probabilities to avoid overbuilding. He also said he was not the right person to address cybersecurity in detail but offered to return to a committee focused on IT or security. In response to questions about future supply, he said LG&E and KU are adding generation through a 120-megawatt solar facility in Mercer County, a 120-megawatt solar purchase in Marion County, and a 645-megawatt natural gas combined-cycle plant in Louisville, with PSC approval recently granted for additional generation and related system upgrades.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> general fund uh the HF now gets 43.5% of general fund uh the HF now gets 43.5% of that<00:23:48.679
• 7% of total general fund we're up to 7 7% of total general fund expenditures<00:43:14.200><c> are</c>
• The small amount of general fund dollars is for the offices of freight rail and passenger rail; they're
• > uh</c> a small amount of General funds and uh a small amount of General funds and uh one<00:47:08.400
• </c><00:48:37.839><c> general</c> the general the small amount of general the general the small amount

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• And in general, it requires businesses that emit over 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide a year to
• of renewable resources or non-emitting generation resources.
• We have to build generation, and this is firm generation that captures most of that carbon, not all.
• ...to build generation, and this is firm generation that captures most of that carbon, not all of it,
• This bill, as we heard, would add a new type of generation.

Summary: The committee began with member and staff introductions, then held a work session on emissions-intensive trade-exposed facilities (EITEs) under Washington’s Climate Commitment Act. Ecology staff reviewed how cap-and-invest works, explained EITE no-cost allowance allocations, and summarized a new report to the Legislature on policy options for 2035-2050. Ecology recommended continuing no-cost allocations but adjusting them to fit the cap, considering a consignment approach that would require EITEs to invest part of the value of free allowances in decarbonization, and studying additional benchmarking and leakage-mitigation refinements. Quebec officials described their cap-and-trade system, including a consignment model that withholds part of free allocations, holds the value in trust for facilities, and requires technical studies and investment in mitigation projects; they said it has encouraged industrial investment and no business closures. Members asked about facility closures, compliance costs, eligible uses of consigned funds, and adaptation spending. The work session then closed. The committee then heard House Bill 2296, which would expand distributed energy resources by allowing portable plug-in solar devices and meter-mounted devices. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended to lower barriers and startup costs for renters and homeowners who want to electrify or add solar. Supporters, including a nonprofit promoting plug-in solar and a physician group, said the devices could broaden access to clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas and health harms. Utilities, labor, and industry groups opposed the bill as written, citing safety concerns, lack of national electrical code standards, possible backfeeding and fire risks, utility-worker hazards, unclear interconnection rules, and concerns about multifamily housing and small-utility review burdens. Some witnesses said they were open to continued work on the proposal. Next, the committee heard House Bill 2285, which would allow natural gas generation paired with carbon capture, utilization, storage, or mineralization to count toward Clean Energy Transformation Act compliance. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill would provide a “bridge” for firm power, help address reliability and transmission constraints, and support jobs while reducing emissions compared with conventional gas. Opponents said the bill would weaken CETA’s 100% clean electricity target by allowing resources that still emit carbon to qualify, and they questioned whether 75% capture is sufficient. Other testimony raised cost concerns and warned that carbon capture could increase ratepayer costs. The hearing on HB 2285 was later suspended and reopened briefly for additional testimony from Ecology, which said the bill would permanently weaken CETA standards and likely reduce emissions reductions. The committee also briefly received a staff briefing on House Bill 2272, a ski-area terminology bill, and then suspended that hearing to take it up later.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's the job of the Attorney General to decide what is proper to be taken.
• They encroach on the authority of the State Attorney General.
• The attorneys general across the board generally approve of this concept.
• The attorneys general across the board generally approve of this concept.
• And that's typically when it rises to the level of the General Assembly or the Attorney General.

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

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1142, which would clarify the Secretary of State’s authority to issue certificates of good standing to series LLCs and make each series searchable on the Secretary of State’s website. The sponsor said the bill was needed to preserve a long-standing practice and keep Missouri business-friendly, and witnesses from the Missouri Chamber and a law firm supported it as a simple clarification. No opposition was presented, and the hearing concluded without a vote in the transcript. The committee then took up House Bill 3347, sponsored by Rep. Murphy, which had two parts: one establishing requirements for political subdivisions entering contingency-fee legal contracts, and another addressing a Kansas City ordinance restricting sales of small liquor bottles in certain areas. Supporters of the legal-contract portion argued that local governments should coordinate with the Attorney General on contingency-fee cases involving statewide issues, citing opioid, PFAS, environmental, and other multi-jurisdictional litigation as examples where attorney fees and fragmented local action created delays and inefficiencies. Opponents, including the Missouri Municipal League, Missouri Association of Counties, and private attorneys, argued the bill would add bureaucracy, delay cases, undermine local control, and potentially freeze out smaller communities; they also raised concerns about vague language, a 45-day review period, and retroactive effects on existing contracts. On the alcohol portion, industry witnesses supported the amendment, saying the Kansas City proposal was discriminatory, unsupported by data, and would hurt retailers and tax revenue. After the hearing, the committee moved into executive session and unanimously voted House Committee Substitute for Senate Bills 907, 1154, and 1272 do pass and do pass with consent, after adopting a technical substitute. The transcript then returned to HB 3347, where testimony continued on both the legal-contract and alcohol provisions, but no final committee vote on HB 3347 appears in the transcript.