Transcript Highlights:

• information on the sponsor's application information on the sponsor's application failing<00:16:
• <00:16:54.759> closing approving annual applications closing approving annual applications
• applications one of the applications applications one of the applications that<00:17:24.720>
• size prior to approving the application size prior to approving the application mde<00:18:34.880
• mde approved the application mde approved the application anyway<00:18:48.679> moving<00:

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Education Policy Committee met to hear a delayed presentation from the Office of the Legislative Auditor on MDE’s oversight of Feeding Our Future, a report released in June 2024. The chair framed the hearing as an oversight review of how the Minnesota Department of Education handled the nonprofit’s participation in the Child and Adult Care Food Program and the Summer Food Service Program, emphasizing that the hearing was not about criminal charges against agency staff. Legislative Auditor Judy Randall and Director of Special Reviews Katherine Tyson explained that their review focused on state oversight, not the underlying federal fraud case, which involved an alleged $250 million scheme and ongoing criminal proceedings. The auditors concluded that MDE’s oversight was inadequate and created opportunities for fraud. They said MDE failed to act on warning signs before the pandemic, did not effectively use its authority to hold Feeding Our Future accountable, and was ill prepared to respond to problems. Examples included approving applications despite concerns about internal controls and staffing, failing to follow up on earlier review findings, not adequately investigating at least 30 complaints, and in one case referring a complaint back to Feeding Our Future for resolution rather than conducting an independent investigation. They also said MDE deferred serious deficiencies without enough evidence that problems had been fully corrected and approved meal claims despite records showing major inconsistencies. Tyson said MDE had made progress on all eight recommendations in the report, though one recommendation to the legislature had not yet been addressed because the session had not convened since the report’s release. The auditors recommended that the legislature establish clearer statutory criteria or give MDE rulemaking authority for sponsor applications, and that MDE strengthen verification of sponsor information, focus more on high-risk sponsors, improve complaint procedures, and emphasize program integrity if waivers reduce oversight in the future. In response to member questions, the auditors said MDE’s reported progress was partial in some areas and that further review would be needed to fully confirm implementation. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• application for federal student aid. application for federal student aid.
• This is the annual universal application This is the annual universal application that<00:05:16.080
• <00:12:28.320> and the state financial aid application and the state financial aid application
• ,<00:12:58.079> they or the state aid application, they or the state aid application, they
• via the Minnesota Dream Act application via the Minnesota Dream Act application and<00:47:53.440

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• They can predict which applicants may have a baby in the next 10 years and eliminate those applicants
• background internet analysis of those applicants, predict which applicants may have a baby in the next
• 10 years and eliminate those applicants from the pool.
• internet analysis of those applicants internet analysis of those applicants they<00:09:55.320>
• 09:57.279> may they can predict which applicants may they can predict which applicants may have

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that we can process applications that we can process applications complete<00:10:41.279> applications
• complete applications more quickly. complete applications more quickly.
• we evaluate those permit applications. we evaluate those permit applications.
• the applicant decided to the applicant decided to administratively<00:36:47.359> withdraw<00:
• And um so when we evaluate permit<00:46:03.760> applications, permit applications, permit applications

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• applicants.
• on all of our applications now.
• for the applications we reviewed.
• applicants to submit a code of conduct to complete the license application process and developed a log
• Second, we now require applicable licensing applicants to submit a signed code of conduct, and we have

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee first heard the Arizona Auditor General’s sunset review of the Arizona Barbering and Cosmetology Board. The audit found some strengths, including timely licensing and complaint resolution in the sample reviewed and rules that matched statutory curriculum requirements, but it also identified a major finding that the board had imposed inconsistent discipline for similar violations and lacked documentation for deviations from its disciplinary guidelines. Other issues included missing reciprocity education requirements, weak application quality control, incomplete school and establishment oversight, and compliance concerns involving open meeting law, public records, and conflicts of interest. The report made 25 recommendations total, including two tied to the disciplinary finding and three suggested statutory changes on esthetics scope of practice, cease-and-desist authority, and eyelash technician training. The board’s executive director said the board agreed with the findings, had already implemented several recommendations, updated disciplinary policies and conflict-of-interest procedures, and was working on legislation and rule changes. After questions about enforcement consistency, licensing verification, cash handling, complaint volume, and conflict disclosures, the committee voted 7-0 to recommend the board be continued for six years, until July 1, 2032. The committee then took up the Arizona Department of Gaming, the Arizona Racing Commission, and the Arizona Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Commission together. The Auditor General reported that the department correctly distributed more than $158 million in tribal contributions in fiscal year 2024 and issued event wagering licenses to reviewed applicants, but found several problems: the department did not consistently obtain and review independent audit reports for event wagering and fantasy sports operators, did not fully comply with conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements, and lacked comprehensive complaint-handling processes. The review also found delays in distributing Compact Trust Fund payments to some tribes, gaps in IT security and horse-racing license checks, and incomplete fee-setting and public-records practices. The report made 36 recommendations to the department, six to the Racing Commission, and 13 to the Boxing and MMA Commission, and all three entities said they agreed and would implement them. In response, the Department of Gaming director said the agency was already making changes, including a historical look-back on operator audits, updated guidance to operators, a new constituent services unit and complaint-tracking process, and improved conflict-of-interest training and forms. She also explained the Compact Trust Fund dispute, saying the department administers the fund but the beneficiary tribes must agree on the revenue baseline formula, which has been complicated by COVID-era closures; no Category Three distributions had yet been made. Committee members asked about possible revenue losses, penalties, and the status of 2024-2025 audits, as well as prediction markets and whether they are legal under Arizona’s event wagering framework. The director said the department had issued cease-and-desist letters to unlicensed prediction-market operators, would review licensed operators for suitability if needed, and would continue to enforce Arizona law. The transcript ends while questioning on prediction markets is still underway, before any vote on the gaming-related reviews is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is that House Bill 1103 directed us to basically create an online application for crisis applications
• I see we have two applicants.
• Madam Chair, are we talking about the crisis application?
• Or are we talking about the eligibility application? Yes.
• Or we talk about the eligibility application? Yes.

Summary: The Human Services Subcommittee met to receive an update from the new director of the Agency for Persons with Disabilities on implementation of House Bill 1103. The director said APD is working to update the funding algorithm through a contracted study due November 15, 2025, expand transparency on its website, launch an online crisis application by the end of 2025, improve client choice in qualified organizations and waiver support coordinators, and coordinate with AHCA on the managed care pilot and Florida HealthFinder listings for APD providers. He also said APD is working on family resource materials, a monthly newsletter, and stronger transition planning with DCF. Members asked about whether the new algorithm would include transportation and what services might change, but the director said the replacement model is still being developed and any new methodology would be implemented through rulemaking. Questions also focused on Family Care Councils, including the statewide council’s membership and appointment process; the director said the statute sets the process and APD is helping councils recruit and organize. On transparency, members praised the website improvements and asked for more interactive data tools. The director said APD would consider suggestions and continue expanding public reporting. The committee also discussed eligibility and waiver notices, including concerns about outdated language in APD letters and how autism cases are reviewed. The director said clinicians and behavioral analysts review cases and asked to see the specific letter. On the pre-enrollment list, the chair asked about the wait list, and the director said APD recently sent 5,612 service offers to people on the list and is working to better distinguish those who truly need services from those who do not. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• :25:13.600> filed<00:25:13.919> by 75 CO applications were filed by 75 CO applications
• And our concern is, why would an applicant ever request a hearing to oppose its own application?
• For an application.
• Griff mentioned that all applications or all hearings requested for applications are to oppose, and I
• Griff mentioned that all applications or all hearings requested for applications are to oppose, and I

Keywords: 00:00:00 - Call to Order/Roll Call 00:01:25 - Discussion of 26RS HB 689 00:15:15 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 689 00:17:02 - Discussion of 26RS HB 407 00:45:40 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 407 00:49:25 - Discussion of 26RS HB 713 00:55:50 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 713 00:56:54 - Discussion of 26RS HB 676 01:06:42 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 676 01:08:43 - Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 689, which would authorize Kentucky to seek federal approval for a Medicaid state-directed payment program for physician and non-physician professional services delivered through qualifying hospital-affiliated groups, beginning in 2026. Rep. Amy Neighbors and witnesses from Owensboro Health and St. Elizabeth Healthcare said the bill would bring in about $29 million in new federal Medicaid dollars without using general fund money, help retain physicians, support rural and underserved access, and tie payments to quality metrics. Witnesses described staffing shortages, rising costs, and the need to sustain services such as OB care, primary care, and preventive outpatient services. After questions about how the funding would work and whether private practices were included, the committee voted on the bill and passed it with favorable expression. The committee then moved to House Bill 407, as substituted, which would streamline Kentucky’s certificate-of-need process. Rep. Marianne Proctor and supporters from the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Institute for Justice said the bill would not repeal CON but would modernize a system they described as outdated and overly restrictive, citing national trends toward reform and arguing that Kentucky’s process has changed little since the 1970s. They said the substitute added language requiring the cabinet to contact a dominant provider when needed for data to make CON determinations. Mark Gilfoil, speaking in opposition for St. Elizabeth Healthcare, argued that CON is not a barrier to care in Northern Kentucky and said the bill would weaken the process by limiting who can request hearings, present evidence, and appeal decisions, effectively giving applicants control and making approvals nearly automatic. He said St. Elizabeth serves as a safety-net hospital for low-income and publicly insured patients and warned the bill could harm that role. Members questioned both sides about the appeal process, the definition of safety-net hospitals, and whether the bill could increase facilities and create waste or abuse. The discussion was still ongoing when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• or both the SFSP and the EBT. application and what location you submit application and what location
• <00:31:26.159> being less applications being less applications being F F F out<00:31:31.000
• to provide paper applications.
• to provide paper applications.
• were received uh three applications were received uh three applications<01:29:17.199> were<01

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee Division II met with the New Hampshire Department of Education to review school nutrition programs and related funding. Department staff Melissa White and Kelly Rambo walked through a packet covering the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program, explaining that these are federally funded USDA programs, with some state supplemental funding in certain areas. They also reviewed reimbursement rates for lunch, breakfast, child/adult care, and summer meals, noting that summer rates follow calendar-year timing while most others follow the state fiscal year. Members asked several questions about how the funding works, especially the difference between federal reimbursements and the state match. Staff explained that the state lunch line in the budget is a fixed match amount tied to federal participation, while breakfast funding is broken out by meal type and reimbursement category. They also discussed why FY 2022 federal spending was much higher during COVID, when USDA covered meals at the free rate for all students, and why FY 2023 and FY 2024 dropped as normal income-eligibility rules returned. A committee member also asked about the “severe need lunch” two-cent rate, and staff said they did not know USDA’s formula. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on summer meals and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved sites, which can be open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-operated benefit program that provides funds to families. They said some schools or sites may not qualify under USDA rules, but eligible children can often use another nearby open site, and the department posts an interactive map and phone line to help families find locations. The committee also discussed the Community Eligibility Provision. Staff said New Hampshire currently has three CEP schools, that the eligibility threshold had recently been lowered from 40% to 25% identified students, and that the program allows participating schools to offer free meals to all students while the local district covers the non-federal share. Members asked whether any districts in the 25% to 40% range had joined; staff said no. The department offered to provide the eligibility report in Excel and noted that the CEP intent is to reduce application burden, though the lower threshold can make the local cost share harder for some districts to absorb.

Transcript Highlights:

• Applicants must be employed with a qualifying agency at the time of the adoption.
• Most of the applicants to the program.
• The application process includes multiple verification steps to confirm eligibility.
• The department then reviews the application.
• state fiscal year, 1920, the department will notify the impacted applicants.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the things that you said was that the application is complicated, so I’ve seen the application
• wondering if putting the application wondering if putting the application online<01:30:00.800>
• for enrolling for schools application for enrolling for schools online<03:09:24.000> applications
• <03:09:24.680> reduce online applications reduce online applications reduce administrative
• way the alternative is an application way the alternative is an application that<03:10:10.840>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up HB 651, a school-funding bill that would raise the base cost of an adequate education and increase differentiated aid for students in poverty, English language learners, and special education. The chair opened with housekeeping notices about parking and eating in committee spaces, and noted a revised fiscal note would be distributed. Representative David Luneau presented the bill as part of a broader package of public school funding measures, explaining that HB 651 builds on HB 550 and is intended to respond to court rulings and the ongoing school-funding litigation by adjusting both the base adequacy amount and equity-based funding factors. Luneau said the bill would raise the state’s adequacy grant from about $4,100 to $7,351 per student and increase differentiated aid, while also updating statutory language so future recalculations include the court-identified resource elements. He argued the measure is about fairness and shifting more of the burden from local property taxpayers to the state, not about increasing overall education spending. He reviewed fiscal-note figures indicating the bill would add roughly $576 million to the state share of school funding, bringing the total state share to about $1.65 billion, and said the note also mentions possible effects on charter schools and vouchers. Committee members asked about the evidence supporting higher costs for low-income and English learner students, how long ESL funding should continue, why free-and-reduced-lunch aid remains higher than special education aid, whether the formula is based on enrollment or average daily membership, and whether the bill is truly equitable across districts of different sizes and needs. Luneau and later witness Zach Shen of the New Hampshire School Funding Fairness Project said the bill is supported by research and court findings, that the current formula relies heavily on local property taxes, and that shifting more funding to the state would reduce property-tax pressure and help address disparities among districts. Shen also cited broad public support for the related HB 550 testimony and said HB 651 is intended as a step toward a more equitable funding system. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:12:41.600> of SB 226FN suspending the application of SB 226FN suspending the application
• , seek additional fees from the applicant, seek additional fees from the applicant, but<00:24:37.440
• <00:24:43.679> This<00:24:44.000> will original application fee was.
• This will original application fee was.
• > opportunity<00:26:03.039> to applicants a structured opportunity to applicants a structured

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So when opportunities arise, we put out an application for community reviewers, and the applicants are
• So when opportunities arise, we put out an application for community reviewers, and the applicants are
• So when opportunities arise, we put out an application for community reviewers, and the applicants are
• state to consider a grant applications state to consider a grant applications or<01:09:49.759>
• :09:51.400> before or Grant applicants P performance before or Grant applicants P performance

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The agency must follow these procedures to process the application in a timely fashion.
• One of my first projects as a law clerk was to work on a change of ownership application.
• Last week we heard a story that it takes 16 months from application to processing.
• And those applications, I actually, I should have brought paper copies, but the applications are like
• The interviewer did not find anything wrong with this mom's application.

Bills: HB660, HB4845, HB3902, HB5396, HB4615, HB1825, HB1403, HB4336, HB4585, HB4371, HB863, SB1589, HB5223, HB3195, HB2734

Keywords: child protective services, adult protective services, caseload limits, call processing goals, child-care licensing, employee workload, reporting requirements, employee caseload limits, protective services, workload management, accountability, Department of Family and Protective Services, employee goals, call processing, child care, human resources, government accountability, Medicaid, provider enrollment, revalidation

Transcript Highlights:

• They're part of the process of trying to deal with some of the applications.
• They're part of the process of trying to deal with some of the applications.
• 18:40.240> the trying to deal with with some of the trying to deal with with some of the applications
• 41.920> they<00:18:42.080> have<00:18:42.440> asked<00:18:42.800> to applications
• Um they have asked to applications.

Keywords: MS Senate Floor - 10 February, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum present, received an invocation from Dr. Denise Pope, and led the pledge of allegiance. The body then dispensed with the reading of the journal, committee reports, and bill titles. Several guests were introduced, including the doctor of the day, student pages, Carthage Christian Academy, Mississippi Valley State University visitors, the University of Southern Mississippi’s DuBard School and related programs, and members of the Mississippi Association of Nurse Anesthetists. The Senate took up Senate Bill 2896, which revises the Department of Public Safety salary schedule for MHP and MBN officers. Senator Hopson explained it as the vehicle for possible pay raises for troopers, NBI, and MBN officers, and the chamber adopted the committee substitute and passed the bill by morning roll call. The Senate also passed Senate Bill 2917, a recurring appropriations cleanup measure; its main change would allow Mississippi Valley State University to use previously designated dormitory funds for repair and renovation instead. A reverse repealer amendment was adopted before final passage by morning roll call. Senate Bill 2825, the Mississippi Health Care Industry Zone Act, was then considered. Senator Harkins said the bill extends the repealer for the health care industry zone incentive program to 2028 and noted the program has generated significant investment and jobs statewide. An amendment requested by the Mississippi Development Authority was adopted to revise eligibility language, including replacing a CON requirement with a requirement that a hospital have at least 25 acute care beds and deleting a section under current law. The bill then passed by morning roll call. Finally, the Senate considered Senate Bill 2894 on local improvement projects and the return of unexpended funds and earned interest. Senator Harkins explained that the bill would require older local improvement project funds to be returned if projects were not moving forward, require reporting to DFA and the Legislative Budget Office, allow audits, and permit limited extensions, while also withholding a portion of other state distributions for noncompliance. Senators raised concerns about projects that are already obligated or delayed by workforce and engineering constraints, and Harkins said the bill would be refined with a reverse repealer to work with LBO and avoid disrupting active projects. The bill was discussed but not finally disposed of in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• There has been no big outcry from the business community about this and the application of this.
• about this from the business community about this and<00:14:31.440> the<00:14:31.680> application
• <00:14:32.800> We've<00:14:33.040> heard and the application of this.
• We've heard and the application of this.
• to very highly compensated applicable to very highly compensated jobs<01:37:03.199> in<01:37:

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• attestation at the time of application. attestation at the time of application.
• necessarily need to have the applicant necessarily need to have the applicant produce<00:20:08.720
• , application, application, is<00:28:35.120> that<00:28:35.360> going<00:28:35.520>
• So, I'm not doing a new<00:29:42.960> application new application new application >> and
• In this case, application date. it.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• because there is so many applications because there is so many applications and<00:15:45.360>
• Um it allows us to build applications.
• These are also um energy applications.
• >> It would this as a coating be applicable to those applications?
• And then in that other applications.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 01:58 Approval of Minutes 03:05 Member Comments 03:18 Nanotechnologies in Energy 06:20, 958, all

Summary: The committee met and approved the minutes, then heard announcements and introductions from members and guests, including an invitation to an East Kentucky trail ride opening and welcomes for new EPIC and Kentucky Coal Association representatives and several constituents. After the opening business, the committee turned to a presentation on nanotechnology and energy applications by Rodney Andrews of the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research. Andrews explained how nanoscale materials behave differently because of their size and surface area, and described uses in consumer products, batteries, solar panels, catalysts, coatings, sensors, and energy storage. Members asked about the relationship between nanomaterials and coal, and Andrews said carbon nanotubes can be made from coal-derived hydrocarbons, which members noted as an opportunity for Kentucky’s coal and manufacturing sectors. He also discussed work on improved solar coatings, more stable perovskites, fuel-processing catalysts, hydrogen storage, renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel, electromagnetic shielding, and conductive yarns and fabrics. The presentation also covered more advanced applications such as thermoelectric textiles, power transmission materials, thermal transport composites for aerospace, nanofluids for cooling, and fusion reactor shielding. In the final discussion, members raised questions about electromagnetic pulse protection and quantum computing; Andrews said the materials discussed could absorb and spread energy and that shielding applications may help with EMPs, while quantum computing remains limited by extremely low operating temperatures. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• We ended up with about 100 applications.
• We constantly invest, and we listen a lot to applicants and to people who haven't been successful applicants
• I don't think it was quite that level, but we definitely saw new applicants—applicants that we had not
• Unsurprisingly, what we get a lot is the same applicants.
• What we get a lot is the same applicants.

Summary: The Capital Budget Committee heard presentations from the Department of Commerce, the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), and a consultant on the School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP) study. Commerce officials described their agency’s role in housing, energy, local government, broadband, and other capital programs, and reported on a $5 million pilot under Senate Bill 5200 that used trusted community messengers and technical assistance to help historically excluded organizations prepare for capital funding. They said 18 organizations received direct support and 79 smaller projects were also funded, but emphasized that statutory match rules, reimbursement-based payments, site-control requirements, insurance and audit costs, and extensive contracting rules remain major barriers. Commerce outlined efforts to expand outreach, digital modernization, internal contracting improvements, tribal MOUs, and innovation centers, and members asked about small business support, housing program placement, and outreach to Eastern Washington and communities of color. RCO described its grant programs for recreation, conservation, education, and salmon/orca recovery, and reviewed equity work done before and after a 2021-23 proviso. The agency had already created a small-communities carve-out in youth athletic facilities, piloted stipends for advisory committee members, and reduced match requirements where allowed. Under the proviso, RCO completed an equity review and a planning program that funded 54 projects across 34 counties, with many applicants being new or long-absent grantees. Staff said the review led to changes in scoring criteria, clearer application guidance, more objective data measures, expanded technical assistance, and targeted community engagement. Members asked about application burden, project sizes, outreach, and how the agency is broadening participation and representation on advisory committees. The final presentation summarized a planning study on SCAP, which examined rising construction costs, fragmented grant programs, local funding barriers, and uneven district capacity. The report recommended nine major changes, including stronger planning support, a new minor-modernization category, a mechanism to use unused funds more quickly, an education-specification prototype, a SCAP enhancement program for low-capacity districts, acceptance of non-SCAP funds, phased modernization, streamlined D-form and reimbursement processes, and revisions to the SCAP formula to better account for grade-band differences, enrollment projections, and regional cost factors. Additional recommendations included ongoing monitoring and evaluation, facilities-impact reviews, matching SCAP increases to construction-cost inflation, earlier locking of funding estimates, flexible program spaces, and updated statewide building-condition assessments. No votes were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• public hearing for the 2026 application public hearing for the 2026 application to<00:03:25.760>
• application would go from $250,000 to $300,000 and the multi-jurisdictional applications from $500,000
• c> from an individual application would go from an individual application would go from $250,000<
• applications from $500,000 to $600,000. applications from $500,000 to $600,000.
• On the date of application to a relevant authority, the applicant uh shall have a vested property right

Keywords: Upon adjournment of the concurrent meeting, the Senate State and Local Government committee will continue meeting, 958, all

Summary: The concurrent meeting began with roll calls for both the Senate Standing Committee on State and Local Government and the House Standing Committee on Local Government, establishing quorums. The committees then heard a Department for Local Government presentation on the Community Development Block Grant program, which serves smaller and more rural areas. Commissioner Matt Sawyers and Executive Director Mark Williams explained the 2026 HUD application as a public hearing, noting an estimated total of a little over $25 million, with proposed allocations for public facilities, community projects, economic development, public services/Recovery Kentucky, and housing. They also described proposed changes, including shifting some funding from economic development to housing, raising non-traditional application ceilings, extending the economic development application window, and giving the commissioner flexibility to reallocate funds if requests exceed the allotment. No legislators or members of the public asked questions, and both chambers approved the presentation and then adjourned the House portion. The Senate committee then took up Senate Bill 149 by Senator Elkins, which updates county treasurer statutes. The bill shortens the waiting period for appointing an acting treasurer from 30 days to 5 days and allows fiscal courts to appoint a temporary treasurer for up to 60 days during vacancies, illness, incapacity, or termination. Members discussed the need for continuity in county finances, and the bill received favorable expression 9-0. Next, the committee considered several housing-related bills from the housing task force. Senate Bill 224, by Senator Mills, creates vested property rights for development applications and narrows who may appeal certain local land-use decisions; the committee adopted a substitute, then approved the bill 8-1 after members raised concerns about standing language and possible impacts on local participation. Senate Bill 225 requires the housing and construction department to analyze the cost and housing-supply effects of proposed housing regulations; it passed 9-0 after a committee substitute. Senate Bill 233, by Senator Neal, removes annual financial reporting requirements for homeowners associations with 14 lots or fewer to reduce burdens on small developments; it passed 9-0. Finally, Senate Joint Resolution 75, as amended, directs the Public Service Commission to study affordability and water/wastewater utility regionalization, including possible consolidation of small districts; the amendment and the resolution both passed 9-0, with one member noting concerns about whether the matter should proceed as an administrative case rather than a study.

Transcript Highlights:

• DHRD: The key difference is that we do screen all the applications, and we do communicate with the applicants
• DHRD: The key difference is that we do screen all the applications, and we do communicate with the applicants
• DHRD: The key difference is that we do screen all the applications, and we do communicate with the applicants
• DHRD: The key difference is that we do screen all the applications, and we do communicate with the applicants
• <02:11:22.040> would case uh none of the applicants would case uh none of the applicants would

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 1494 on hearing aids. Testimony was generally supportive of expanding hearing-aid coverage, with the Insurance Division raising concern about possible federal defrayment issues, SHPDA supporting the goal of hearing augmentation, DCAB strongly supporting the bill as an important access issue, and health plans and insurers asking for amendments. Kaiser Permanente and the Hawaii Association of Health Plans requested changes to add a medical-necessity standard and clarify annual notice language, while HMSA suggested the proposal should be studied by the auditor. The chair noted concerns about federal preemption and the lack of an audit, and deferred the bill in favor of a related resolution calling for a study. The committee then heard SB 1448, an emergency appropriation for the Hawaii State Hospital. DAGS and the Department of Health supported the measure, with the hospital administrator saying the funding would improve the environment of care, support cleaning, and allow a third-party review of the building. Committee members questioned the size of the request and the status of litigation against the design-builder. Administration witnesses said they were pursuing a comprehensive study involving destructive testing, had made a demand on the design-builder to fund the study, and were using different processes than before. They also said the roof work would be handled through a separate CIP request. No final action was taken in the portion provided. The committee next heard SB 1432, relating to the future responsibilities of the Department of Health and land issues at Kalaupapa after the last patient dies. DOH supported the bill in part but said its long-term role would be limited mainly to environmental cleanup, with operations expected to continue under the National Park Service and land-use decisions left to DHHL and beneficiary consultation. DHHL asked that the measure reflect that any land-use or zoning changes on homeland lands require commission approval and beneficiary consultation. Testifiers from Kalaupapa and Maui County, including Degra Vanderbilt-Papa and Council Member Keani Rollins-Fernandez, supported deferring the bill, saying there had been no meaningful community discussion about provisions affecting Kalaupapa’s future management and possible transfer of responsibilities to Maui County. The committee also read into the record written testimony from Gloria Marks emphasizing that Kalaupapa stakeholders must be included in future discussions. Finally, the committee heard SB 955 on fitness-to-proceed examinations. The Judiciary and the Public Defender’s Office both supported raising pay and standardizing expectations for private examiners, but opposed reducing felony fitness evaluations from three examiners to one and opposed expanding use of expedited reports. They argued that a single examiner would reduce reliability, create a more adversarial process, and likely increase costs and contested hearings, while expedited reports do not contain enough information for a proper fitness determination. The Department of Health also supported the bill’s intent but asked to preserve a three-examiner framework and said the goal was to reduce the number of people sent to the State Hospital, where admissions have reportedly risen about 20% year over year since Act 26. The bill remained under discussion in the excerpt, with no final vote shown.