Transcript Highlights:

• from fiscal year 27 to fiscal year 26. from fiscal year 27 to fiscal year 26.
• in fiscal year 23.
• in fiscal year 23.
• in fiscal year 23.
• in fiscal year 23.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So $344 million in fiscal number again. So $344 million in fiscal year<00:16:03.680> 2026.
• So the estimate of fiscal impact for fiscal year 26 is just over $107 million. we'll skip over it to
• > impact<00:38:22.640> for<00:38:22.960> fiscal the estimate of fiscal impact for
• fiscal the estimate of fiscal impact for fiscal year<00:38:23.680> 26<00:38:24.560> is
• fiscal year 2026. fiscal year 2026.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• President, thank you for pointing out the fiscal impact on the GA bill.
• So could you help me understand if that is for this current fiscal year?
• there was 20 million dollars apparently from what I read, for or was supposed to be appropriated in fiscal

Bills: HB3418, HB3985, HB3463, HB3002, HB4303, HB3919, HB3416, HB3417, HB3415, HB2206, HB3414, HB3265, HB3310, HB3413, HB4486, HB1219, SR39, SB1177, HB3298, HB2696, HB3941, HB3970, HB3264, HB3321, HB2650, HB3497, HB3980, HB3981, HB4421, HB3177, HB3322, HB3499, HB3500, HB3845, HB3742, HB3622, HB1250, HB2710, HB3831, HB4408, HB1002, HB3008, HB3086, HB3595, HB3678, HB4107, HB3695, HB3315, HB3590, HB3006, HB3151, HB2959, HB2398, HB3026, HB3467, HB4268, HB3372, HB2210, HB4359, HB4427

Keywords: public works, bidding procedures, construction contracts, transparency, public trust, electronic bidding, school districts, property rights, public nuisance, compensation claims, government enforcement, Oklahoma Safe Neighborhoods Act, municipal audit, state auditor, local government, financial transparency, gasoline tax allocations, counties, county officers, education

Transcript Highlights:

• If the cost-benefit analysis was not included with a measure, the committee was to request the analysis
• fiscal note that you can just click online and see the fiscal note.
• Just add a link with the cost-benefit analysis so that everyone has a copy of that cost-benefit analysis
• The department did all the analysis.
• So that one was, Benefit analysis, but I didn't really see benefit.

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:

• by the end of fiscal year 26-27.
• Due to rising costs, DSH requests $19 million in fiscal year 25-26 and $19.9 million in fiscal year 26
• That's what the analysis will touch on.
• Are we, and I know they haven't had an analysis, at least on the H.R. 1, but is there an analysis?
• 2026–27 through fiscal year 2029–30.

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations from the Department of State Hospitals (DSH), the Commission for Behavioral Health, and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) on budget proposals and implementation updates. DSH outlined its proposed 2026-27 budget, including funding for patient operating expenses, IST solutions savings, conditional release program costs, LPS bed allocation changes, electrical infrastructure projects at Napa and Patton, SB 380 transitional housing feasibility work, and expanded dental services at Metropolitan and Patton. DSH also reported that it has met court-ordered IST treatment benchmarks in the Stiavedi v. Clinton case, with average time to initiate treatment down to about five days and pending placements reduced to roughly 250, while noting that Proposition 36 could increase referrals and SB 1323 may divert some individuals earlier into community-based treatment. Members asked about rising outside hospitalization costs, Medicare enrollment, the timing and structure of capital projects, and whether IST solution funds are being fully used; DSH said the savings reflect slower-than-expected ramp-up of community programs and that the Central California FACT replacement program is still on track for January 2027 activation. The Commission for Behavioral Health described its role under the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), including data, evaluation, grantmaking, technical assistance, and transparency work. It highlighted the new statewide Innovation Partnership Fund, a five-year, $20 million-per-year program with small and large grant categories; the first RFA drew strong interest, with more than 400 questions and over 1,000 bidders’ conference participants. The Commission also discussed a proposed extension to spend down about $4.1 million remaining for the Alcove Youth Drop-in Center grants so sites can finish implementation and Stanford can complete the final evaluation. Members asked about grant duration, whether projects can be renewed, what qualifies as innovation, and whether the fund could support service delivery rather than awareness campaigns or training; the Commission said awards are expected to be three-year contracts and that proposals must be new or meaningfully expanded approaches that support BHSA priority populations. DHCS reviewed major behavioral health changes under CalAIM and BH Connect, including peer support, mobile crisis, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, updated specialty mental health access criteria, and new substance use treatment standards based on ASAM’s fourth edition. DHCS reported strong contingency management results, with more than 13,000 members served and 95% testing negative for stimulant use during treatment, and said 21 Indian health care providers have been approved to offer traditional health care practices. It also described BH Connect initiatives such as the $1.9 billion access reform and outcomes incentive program, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation by four counties, and transitional rent services. On BHSA implementation, DHCS said it is not tracking individual county contract cuts but is monitoring county plans and statewide outcomes, while stakeholders raised concerns about local prevention and service gaps. DHCS also outlined its H.R. 1 implementation strategy, including outreach, streamlined renewals, exemptions for disabled, substance use, and medically frail individuals, and proposed clinic navigator and outreach funding; it said it has not yet produced a focused estimate of H.R. 1 impacts on behavioral health populations. The discussion ended with DHCS noting that B-CHIP bond funding has supported 437 infrastructure projects, creating 546 new or expanded facilities and more than 9,500 residential beds across the state.

Transcript Highlights:

• So at the start of the pilot program, there's a cost-benefit analysis done.
• Frickie, does L.C., what has to trigger L.C. to do cost-benefit analysis?
• I look at your fiscal note, not the cost-benefit analysis.
• I'm not sure I've ever reviewed the cost-benefit analysis.
• I look at your fiscal note, not the cost-benefit analysis.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The conference committee on HB 1248 met to review differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, which concerns the PERS pilot program and insurance mandate process. Rebecca Frickie, executive director of PERS, explained that the Senate version removed the House provisions repealing the insurance mandate process, kept the two-year PERS pilot intact, and preserved the requirement for a report at the end of the pilot while removing language that would have required PERS to submit a bill to expand coverage to the commercial market. Members discussed the bill’s cost-benefit analysis requirements. Frickie said the current law triggers a cost-benefit analysis at the start of the pilot and again when a bill is introduced to roll coverage out commercially, but the Senate draft would change that to only one analysis at the end of the pilot if a rollout bill is introduced. Legislative Council indicated that if the committee wants that simplified approach, additional conforming changes are needed elsewhere in the code. Senators also asked about the purpose of the initial analysis and whether it is used beyond being attached to the bill packet; Frickie said PERS relies primarily on its own actuary and was not aware of broader use. The committee discussed whether the revised process would still require legislative sponsorship for any future rollout, and Frickie confirmed that a legislator or other sponsor would need to introduce such a bill. Examples mentioned included insulin caps and breast exams as possible future pilot items. The committee agreed to request Legislative Council draft the needed language changes and planned to reconvene after receiving the updated draft; no final vote was taken and the meeting was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• She said they have completed their fiscal analysis and wanted to make sure the committee understood it
• Those were worked into the 2 to 3 million range in the fiscal analysis worksheet. covering uh kids that
• fiscal analysis so that be getting that fiscal analysis so that you<02:10:27.679> can<02:10:27.840
• She said they factored that part into the fiscal analysis, so it is not a current cost that exists today
• She said they factored that into the fiscal analysis, so it is not a current cost that exists today;

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• analysis on those bills?
• You did a fiscal analysis for the session, I know, but have you done it, given the fact that we've had
• Have you done new fiscal notes for those bills?
• And yes, we've done some preliminary analysis.
• the full updated fiscal note.

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy Executive Committee approved the September minutes and received updates on two court cases, Fowler and Dolan. Staff explained that Fowler concerns interest calculations for members who transferred from Plan 2 to Plan 3 before 2002; the Ninth Circuit has already found liability, and the remaining issue is damages, which could be significant depending on the expert-driven calculation. Dolan was described as quieter, with briefing completed at the Court of Appeals and oral argument possible later this year or early next year. The committee also heard an actuarial update on the interim work plan, including planned informational briefings on month-of-death policy, a Plan 1 ad hoc COLA, and the OSA demographic experience study, which is still under external audit. Members asked whether updated fiscal notes had been prepared for two bills under study; staff said preliminary analysis had been done and full updates would come if the bills move forward. The committee then discussed how to handle the ad hoc COLA item and agreed to have staff draft a letter endorsing House Bill 1474 and any similar Senate bill for a one-year ad hoc COLA, to be brought back for full committee consideration in November. Staff reviewed the draft November and December work plan. The committee adopted the November agenda, which includes annual updates from the State Investment Board and Retirement Systems, the left one study closeout, and the ad hoc COLA action item. Members also discussed whether excess compensation and 2026 session prep should be handled by email rather than in a meeting, with general agreement to move the session prep to electronic communication and possibly handle excess compensation as an informational item, depending on availability. Constituent correspondence included several messages on climate change and Plan 1 COLAs, including support for the merger bill and COLAs in general. Jacob White of the LEOFF 2 Board reported that the board had only held an educational briefing on excess compensation and overtime, found the data limited, and took no further action. The meeting ended with thanks to staff and an adjournment vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• because these rules have no fiscal effect.
• This was not required for a regulatory analysis.
• There was no fiscal effect on state revenues, no takings There was no fiscal effect on state revenues
• Regulatory analysis and fiscal note were prepared.
• Regulatory analysis and fiscal note were prepared.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• year, local fiscal year, 2018-19, 2019-20, all the way through 2023-24?
• So this is local fiscal year 2018-2019.
• It was not a part of our county analysis.
• And if so, would your analysis also include the findings?
• We could do more of an analysis of it.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for a listening session focused on a presentation by Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research on local government revenues and expenditures. Baker reviewed statewide financial data for counties, municipalities, and independent special districts, using 2018-19 as a baseline year because it was stable and pre-COVID. She explained that counties rely heavily on taxes, with ad valorem taxes making up about 73% of county tax revenue and about 24% of total county revenues statewide, while municipalities rely more on charges for services and have a lower statewide ad valorem share of about 14.7%. She also noted wide variation across local governments, with some counties and cities highly dependent on property taxes and others using them minimally or not at all. Special districts were shown to be very different from counties and cities, with hospital-related revenues and expenditures dominating many of them, while water management districts were more reliant on ad valorem taxes and focused expenditures on the physical environment. Baker also summarized expenditure patterns: counties spent the largest share on public safety, while municipalities spent the largest share on general government services, followed by physical environment and public safety. She emphasized that local government structures vary widely and that the committee should study what characteristics are associated with greater property tax reliance. She said the next research steps would be to extend the analysis through later years, including the COVID and inflation period, and to examine institutional and legal factors that shape local fiscal structures. Members asked about unfunded mandates, fuel taxes, reserves, school taxes, millage rates, and how property taxes relate to specific services such as police and fire. Baker said the current analysis did not yet account for mandates or school taxes and that further work could examine links between revenues and expenditures, commercial versus residential tax burdens, and other factors. After the presentation, members reported back on local meetings with counties and municipalities. Several described large differences in millage rates, revenue mixes, and the impact of any property tax changes on fiscally constrained counties versus larger, wealthier ones. Concerns were raised about how local governments would replace lost revenue, especially for public safety and emergency response, and members discussed the need to consider both revenue replacement and ways to rein in spending. The co-chairs said the committee would continue gathering information, send members follow-up homework and requests for panel suggestions, and invite additional input from constituents, stakeholders, and local governments. The meeting ended with no votes or formal actions beyond adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The fiscal impact is estimated to have no state cost and has no opposition.
• The committee analysis highlights there is no fiscal cost to the state.
• The committee analysis highlights there is no fiscal cost to the state.
• As the analysis notes, there is no fiscal effect.
• As the analysis notes, the bill has minor and observable costs.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and began by approving two large groups of bills on consent: a due-pass-to-consent set and a due-pass set for bills eligible for the floor consent calendar. The committee then heard a series of author presentations, generally focused on bills with minor, absorbable, or no state costs, and most measures were reported out with due-pass recommendations, often on roll call and sometimes with members not voting or bills held on call. Among the bills discussed were AB 1792 on updating health guidance to address AI-related digital safety risks for students, AB 1843 on removing barriers to hepatitis C treatment, AB 2350 on consumer protections for rent-now-pay-later products, AB 2780 on technical changes to teachers’ retirement law, AB 2117 on restructuring K-12 education governance, AB 1913 and AB 2706 on emergency equipment authority and cannery law modernization, and AB 1914 and AB 1820 on child care planning and EV charger permitting. Other measures included AB 2417 on retirement information for community college faculty, AB 2506 on cannabis commerce involving tribal licensees, AB 2200 on greenhouse energy-code compliance, AB 1664 on notice to state officials when election records are seized or subpoenaed, AB 2135 on nursing home discharge notices, AB 2697 on allowing drive-through cannabis sales with local approval, AB 2518 on a San Diego County energization-delay pilot, AB 1665 on mental health training for school coaches, AB 2532 on cannabis beverage safeguards and labeling, AB 1627 on disqualifying certain federal immigration enforcement personnel from becoming peace officers, AB 2121 on community college funding safeguards, AB 2771 on extending the Bureau for Postsecondary Private Proprietary Education sunset, and AB 2120 on preserving LAUSD’s selected certification hiring practice. Most witnesses and sponsors described the bills as low-cost, technical, or modernization measures; a few bills drew opposition or “oppose unless amended” testimony, including AB 1820 and AB 2706-related items, but no major floor votes were taken in the transcript beyond committee recommendations. The committee also heard AB 2541, a presentation-only suspense-file bill to create a lowrider specialty license plate that would generate revenue for community and youth programs. The bill drew enthusiastic bipartisan comments and requests to be added as coauthors, but it was sent to suspense for later consideration. Afterward, the committee approved a lengthy suspense calendar and opened general public comment, where members of the public voiced support or opposition on various other bills, including telework, physical therapy licensure, pesticide restrictions, data disaggregation, and other measures not heard that day. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So did we have the fiscal note on that when it passed?
• I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis.
• An analysis would confirm that for us.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• I'll move the analysis. A second. further analysis. So Representative Vetter?

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the regular fiscal note process, we get an analysis of how the bill would financially affect state
• >> No, the fiscal analysis, as I responded to Representative Maguire, talks about the funding parts.
• >> No,<01:54:51.599> the<01:54:51.760> fiscal<01:54:52.080> analysis<01:54
• :52.639> as<01:54:52.880> I<01:54:53.599> responded >> No, the fiscal analysis
• as I responded >> No, the fiscal analysis as I responded to to to Representative<01:54:56.320>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• analysis analysis comparison<00:31:56.240> to<00:31:56.720> a<00:31:57.440> light
• Ways and Means the potential fiscal Ways and Means the potential fiscal impact<00:42:48.200>
• <00:46:16.680> cost committee and there is no fiscal cost committee and there is no fiscal
• It says it's not limited to planning, analysis, predesign, design, engineering, environmental analysis
• It says it's not limited to planning, analysis, predesign, design, engineering, environmental analysis

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The fiscal impact is estimated to have no state cost and has no opposition.
• The committee analysis highlights there is no fiscal cost to the state.
• As the analysis points out, the costs for the state are minor and absorbable.
• As the analysis notes, there is no fiscal effect, and I certainly ask for an aye vote on behalf of Senator
• As the analysis notes, the bill has minor and observable costs.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and began by approving a large consent calendar of bills on two unanimous-support motions. The committee then heard a series of individual bills, with authors and sponsors generally describing low or absorbable state costs and asking for aye votes. Topics included AI/digital safety education for students (AB 1792), hepatitis C treatment access (AB 1843), rent-now-pay-later consumer protections (AB 2350), retirement information for community college faculty (AB 2417), cannabis regulation changes including tribal commerce, drive-through sales, and beverage labeling (AB 2506, AB 2697, AB 2532), emergency equipment training for law enforcement volunteers (AB 1913), cannery law modernization (AB 2706), child care planning in local governments (AB 1914), EV charger permitting fees (AB 1820), election-record notice requirements (AB 1664), nursing home discharge notices (AB 2135), a San Diego energization-delay pilot (AB 2518), mental health training for school coaches (AB 1665), and education governance and oversight changes (AB 2117). Several bills were described as committee or sponsor measures with technical or clarifying changes, including AB 2780, AB 2615, AB 2121, and AB 2771. Testimony was largely supportive, often from sponsor groups, industry representatives, labor, or advocacy organizations. Notable support included TechNet for AB 1792, the California State Sheriffs’ Association for AB 1913, California Dairies and food manufacturers for AB 2706, the Low Income Investment Fund for AB 1914, EV and environmental groups for AB 1820, the Attorney General’s Office for AB 1664, long-term care ombudsman advocates for AB 2135, and the California State Association of Psychiatrists for the cannabis and mental-health-related bills. Some bills drew limited opposition or “opposed unless amended” positions, including AB 2350, AB 1820, and AB 2506, while AB 2697 and AB 2532 were presented as efforts to support the legal cannabis market and consumer safety. The committee also heard a presentation-only item, AB 2541, creating a lowrider specialty license plate, which drew enthusiastic bipartisan comments and co-author requests from members. Most bills were reported out with due pass recommendations, many on roll call and several with specific members not voting or voting no. AB 1664 was reported out as due pass as amended and placed on call before later being moved out on a B roll call. AB 2350 and AB 1914 were also later reported out from call on B roll calls, with AB 1914 noted as passing despite some Republican no votes. The suspense calendar was then deemed approved without individual action, and the meeting concluded after a brief public comment period in which members of the public voiced positions on unrelated bills, including support for AB 2497, AB 1729, AB 2189, AB 1575, AB 2170, and opposition to AB 1603, AB 2447, AB 2411, AB 2492, and AB 1952.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to read you something from an analysis from OpenSky.
• But as a fiscal conservative here in the Legislature, this is the number one issue.
• But we're going to have fiscal challenges after my class is gone. Good luck.
• But we're going to have fiscal challenges after my class is gone. Good luck.
• Provide a fiscal note.

Bills: LB737, LB753, LB788, LB913, LB1055, LB1195, LB1216, LB1256, LB429, LB721, LB722, LB727, LB743, LB745, LB749, LB778, LB787, LB365A, LB823, LB900, LB903, LB940, LB954, LB1127, LB1127A, LB1205, LB1240, LR293, LR296, LR422, LR505, LR507

Keywords: LB737, Olmstead, developmental disabilities, disability services, community-based services, integrated settings, DHHS, Department of Health and Human Services, stakeholder advisory committee, independent consultant, public hearing, legislative oversight, disability rights, community integration, housing, employment, education, transportation, community supports, self-advocacy

Transcript Highlights:

• K on the impact to public schools and the handout from NACO on the fiscal impacts to counties.
• It also refers to a $3 million per year award under the section beginning in fiscal year 2027-28, and
• It appropriates funds from the Nebraska State Cash Fund for fiscal years 2026-27 and 2027-28, and declares
• The bill appropriates $1,250,000 from the Nebraska State Cash Fund for fiscal year 2026-27 and $2,000,000
• from the Nebraska State Cash Fund for fiscal year 2027-28 to the Legislature.

Bills: LB737, LB753, LB788, LB913, LB1055, LB1195, LB1216, LB1256, LB429, LB721, LB722, LB727, LB743, LB745, LB749, LB778, LB787, LB365A, LB823, LB900, LB903, LB940, LB954, LB1127, LB1127A, LB1205, LB1240, LR293, LR296, LR422, LR505, LR507

Keywords: LB737, Olmstead, developmental disabilities, disability services, community-based services, integrated settings, DHHS, Department of Health and Human Services, stakeholder advisory committee, independent consultant, public hearing, legislative oversight, disability rights, community integration, housing, employment, education, transportation, community supports, self-advocacy

Transcript Highlights:

• The district's student counts have decreased almost 9% since fiscal year 2022 and just over 3.5% in fiscal
• Now, this is the general fund position as of the end of fiscal year 2025 versus fiscal year 2024 unaudited
• fiscal year it was 44%.
• The lowest fiscal year in the 25 years of reporting instructional spending was in fiscal year 2024, which
• We believe in fiscal discipline.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee first heard the January 2026 follow-up to the special audit of the Arizona State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The auditor’s contractor reported that the board had implemented or was in the process of implementing most of the 28 recommendations from the 2024 audit, but three remained unimplemented: resolving complaints within 180 days and two open meeting law recommendations. The follow-up also identified new concerns about outdated or incomplete public disciplinary records and the lack of a complete public records request log and response procedures. Committee members pressed the board on open meeting compliance, complaint delays, transparency, and lobbying activities, while the executive director said the board had adopted new policies, added staff and investigators, created an intake committee, improved complaint prioritization, and was transitioning to a new licensing platform. She also said the board had ended broad subpoenas, improved conflict-of-interest tracking, and was working to formalize its practices in rule. The committee did not take a vote or other formal action in the transcript provided. The committee then received the Arizona school district financial risk analysis for January 2026. The Auditor General’s office reported that the number of highest-risk districts increased from two to nine, and districts approaching the highest-risk category increased from seven to nine. The presentation explained the financial risk measures used, common risk patterns among the highest-risk districts, and the district action plans posted on the report website. Tucson Unified School District was used as an example of a highest-risk district, and Scottsdale Unified as an approaching-highest-risk district. Members asked about declining enrollment, reserve balances, negative fund balances, and the use of capital monies for operations. Sierra Vista Unified School District then presented its response to being identified as financially at risk. The superintendent said she had recently taken over and was implementing a turnaround plan that included a school closure, staffing reductions through attrition, spending freezes, tighter purchase controls, a three-year sustainable spending plan, and efforts to stabilize enrollment through outreach, customer-service changes, and alternative program offerings. She also said the district was redirecting some capital assistance to operations, renegotiating contracts, and improving communication with families and staff. Committee members questioned the district about declining enrollment, instructional spending, school safety, academic performance, and whether the action plan adequately addressed those issues. No formal vote or action was taken on the school district item in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• this is an analysis of contingency or this is an analysis of what's<00:47:18.480> needed<00:47
• bill after the Senate bill that analysis bill after the Senate bill that analysis is<00:51:04.799
• <00:56:32.880> year left the pool for the next fiscal year left the pool for the next fiscal
• <01:07:20.520> uh own act independent actes analysis uh own act independent actes analysis
• year 24 where fiscal year 23 and fiscal year 24 where we<01:40:04.520> saw<01:40:04.800> we

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• refer you to the actuarial analysis.
• and then milman for the analysis and then milman for the Actuarial<00:08:37.200> analysis<00:
• The chair called a friend from fiscal analysis to help answer the question. ve um oh I'm going to lose
• gonna call a friend on the fiscal gonna call a friend on the fiscal analysis Welcome to the committee
• analysis.

Keywords: 1183, house