Transcript Highlights:

• It give me the budget. Let me decide the budget."
• And this budget does not fix... Government. And this budget does not fix it.
• And the budget just mentioned before. And the budget remains<02:35:56.319> balanced.
• . budget. budget.
• So, it maintains the budget.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:56:54.480> that<00:56:54.799> I to how how would we implement that I to how how
• would we implement that I guess<00:56:56.400> yeah<00:56:56.720> yeah<00:56:57.440>
• folks, but we're answering to a budget folks, but we're answering to a budget committee,<01:46:06.400
• Uh, one out of every four dollars in our education budget is special ed now.
• <01:52:37.599> is dollars in our education budget is dollars in our education budget is special

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened its second meeting on House Bill 742, which would require catastrophic special education aid to be drawn from the education trust fund, and discussed whether to also examine differentiated aid within the adequacy formula. The chair said the committee had previously heard from HHS/Medicaid officials and now wanted to hear from local special education directors about how the aid system works in practice, including billing, training, data collection, and whether districts handle claims consistently. Members also referenced Arkansas as a possible comparison state and said they hoped to develop ideas by November to address the current funding process. Committee members focused on the current special education aid thresholds and the impact of proration. The chair described the existing formula as requiring districts to absorb costs up to 3.5 times the state average per student, with the state paying 80% from 3.5 times through 10 times and paying above that, and said FY25 appropriated about $34 million while actual claims were about $50.1 million, leaving roughly a $16 million shortfall that caused proration. Members also raised the possibility of lowering the threshold to 2.5 times and asked how that would affect the number of eligible students and costs. Another member asked about how districts decide whether services are education-related or medical-related and how Medicaid or private insurance reimbursement affects later state aid claims. District representatives from Boothby Therapy Services, Bedford, and Guilford introduced themselves and described their roles. Guilford’s director said the district tracks students with paraprofessional support, nurses, transportation, or specialized programming, uses a data system to log every service touchpoint, and tries to maximize both Medicaid and special education aid; she said a lower threshold would likely capture all students with paras or nurses and that rising staffing and service costs would increase the number of students over the cap. Bedford’s assistant director said the district uses a different system, tracks roughly 60 to 80 students a year, and pursues Medicaid and special education aid simultaneously but does not pursue private insurance if it would affect FAPE; she said reducing the threshold to 2.5 times would likely double the number of qualifying students. Members asked follow-up questions about software, data entry, and how districts decide whether to bill Medicaid or seek state catastrophic aid, and the directors explained that their systems log services by staff type and student, with some districts using the same data for both Medicaid and state reimbursement claims.

Transcript Highlights:

• 2026, and one of the things that it did was direct the United States Postal Service to draft and implement
• One of the things that it did was direct the United States Postal Service to draft and implement rules
• What about all the budget needs that people are asking for?
• What about all the budget needs that people are asking for?
• What about all the budget needs that we need that people are asking for?

Summary: The House State Government & Tribal Relations Committee held a virtual work session focused first on federal actions affecting elections. A representative from NCSL reviewed recent U.S. Supreme Court and pending cases, including a redistricting/Voting Rights Act case and a case on whether mailed ballots received after Election Day can be counted. She also discussed a Trump executive order directing USPS to draft mail-ballot rules, the federal SAVE system’s expanded use for voter list maintenance, DOJ requests for unredacted voter rolls, and reduced federal election-security support. Committee members asked about proof of citizenship requirements, whether DOJ requests are compulsory, and how federal election funding and grants may be changing. The Attorney General’s Office then described Washington’s litigation challenging two election-related executive orders and DOJ’s lawsuit seeking unredacted voter registration lists. State lawyers said courts have already enjoined parts of the executive orders, including documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements and voting-system changes, and have upheld Washington’s ballot-receipt deadlines so far. They said DOJ’s voter-roll demands have been rejected by multiple courts and that Washington’s position is that state law limits disclosure of sensitive voter data. Members asked about the legal basis for DOJ’s requests, the risk of immigration-enforcement use, and whether attestation on registration forms counts as proof of citizenship; the office said it does under state law and that no evidence of mass voter-fraud problems in Washington has been shown. Deputy Attorney General Todd Bowers then gave a broader overview of the Attorney General’s federal litigation, saying Washington has filed 61 cases since January 2025, often with other states, and has had notable success obtaining preliminary injunctions and favorable summary judgments. He highlighted cases involving election rules, environmental and energy disputes, public health funding, student loans, housing, and data privacy, and said many challenges involve executive-branch conditions added to congressionally appropriated funds. He also described a growing number of federal audits and inquiries directed at state agencies. Finally, Office of Equity Director Megan Matthews discussed how federal actions are affecting state and local equity work, community organizations, and public confidence. She said the office is coordinating more closely with the Attorney General, governor’s office, other agencies, and local governments through the immigration subcabinet, while also working on data privacy, Keep Washington Working compliance, and community outreach. Committee members asked about the office’s human-trafficking work and how it is encouraging agency compliance; Matthews said the focus is on clearer guidance, technical support, and consistent expectations across agencies. The committee adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We had a note from our other committee, which I chair, which is the committee for the legislative budget
• a decent percentage of districts that include that as a component of their local school district budget
• The challenge that the state board had when they were designing this program or designing how to implement
• We're going to be ready to implement that if the governor signs that bill.
• Before you leave, uh, have you had any contact from the Legislative Budget Assistant's office?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Freedom Account Oversight Committee met on March 27 and approved the agenda, adding a request for clarification on how the Children’s Scholarship Fund separates applications for the EFA program and the education tax credit program. The committee also approved minutes from December 30, 2025, and March 27, 2026, with a request that the March minutes include a link to the live stream. Members discussed the status of pending Legislative Budget Assistant audit reports on EFA and special education, noting the reports were still not released and would likely come later in the summer after review by the Department of Education and the Children’s Scholarship Fund. A major topic was the EFA program’s administrative fee, which statute allows up to 10% of deposits. Children’s Scholarship Fund representatives said current administrative costs were under 8%, that staffing had been reduced through the ScholarVia platform, and that any unused amount is reconciled and returned to students at year’s end. Members asked for historical administrative-cost data and a written explanation of how the withholding and reconciliation process works. The committee also reviewed the distinction between the EFA and education tax credit funding streams and was told the two programs use separate applications and separate funds, though both use the same platform. The committee spent substantial time on assessment and accountability. Department of Education staff explained that EFA students may satisfy annual assessment requirements through a portfolio, a norm-referenced test, or the statewide assessment; only about 10 EFA students took the statewide assessment, while most used portfolios or standardized tests such as the California Achievement Test and NWEA. Staff described how statewide assessment data are kept separate by student identifier and can be aggregated for EFA reporting, and members asked for breakdowns by grade, test type, and school district. The department also discussed linking assessments through Lexiles and Quantiles and said it could provide a list of commonly used formative assessments in New Hampshire districts. The committee additionally discussed a possible PSAT addition to the state contract and the costs of the statewide assessment program. Another major issue was special education eligibility and services within the EFA program. Members questioned the rule allowing a medical certification of disability from a licensed professional anywhere in the United States as an alternative to an IEP-based determination. Department staff said the current system allows either pathway, that about 1,000 EFA students are identified as special education students, and that the program does not track growth or service alignment on an individual basis. Members expressed concern that the medical-certification route may be too broad and asked for data on the disability categories used. The committee also discussed career and technical education access for EFA students, noting that Senate Bill 491 would provide guidance and that House Bill 1817 would address access and funding issues, but that current law still allows EFA funds to be used to pay CTE costs. The meeting ended with a request for future agenda items and a decision to leave the next meeting date open until fall, pending further information from the LBA audit process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Last year's federal budget reconciliation bill, HR1, expanded the types of educational programs that
• In this shifting political and budget climate, we need clear timelines and baselines to prevent worker
• However, multiple problems are facing the CalSavers program, which have affected implementation and require
• However, multiple problems are facing the CalSavers program, which have affected implementation and require
• And so I know that there might be growing pains in implementing the legislation from last year.

Summary: The Assembly Labor and Employment Committee heard and advanced a series of bills, mostly on worker safety, wages, workforce training, and retirement savings. AB 2137 (Chen) would strengthen safety rules and certification for artificial stone fabrication shops to reduce silica exposure; AB 2499 (Gibson) would require Cal/OSHA to develop heat-illness protections for incarcerated workers and staff in correctional facilities; AB 2300 (Arambula) would streamline the disbursement of state and federal workforce funds; AB 2646 (Krell) would establish a minimum wage floor for certain agricultural workers; AB 2227 (Connolly) would tighten licensing and bond requirements for farm labor contractors and add default-judgment procedures for wage claims; AB 1869 (Haney) would create a reporting process for alleged REIT interference in hotel operations; AB 2650 (Pellerin) would expand CalSavers with emergency savings accounts and other updates; AB 2634 (Zbur) would prioritize labor-management partnerships in High Road Training Partnership grants; and AB 1888 would require skilled-and-trained workforce and prevailing wage standards for work under the Safe Home Grant Program. AB 1534 (Irwin) would create California’s approval process for short-term Pell-eligible workforce programs. The committee also took up several consent items, including AB 1904, AB 1980, AB 2550, AB 2078, and AB 2682. Most bills were described as aligning state programs with federal law or improving worker protections and program quality, while opponents generally raised concerns about costs, administrative burden, regulatory uncertainty, or reduced oversight. Testimony was largely split along labor and industry lines. Supporters included labor unions, legal aid groups, workforce boards, and affected workers or family members, who emphasized heat illness, wage theft, silica exposure, poor prison conditions, and the need for higher-quality training and retirement access. Opponents on several bills, especially those affecting agriculture, REITs, and workforce administration, argued the measures would increase costs, create uncertainty, or duplicate existing law. On AB 2227, committee members engaged in extended discussion about Labor Commissioner delays and whether the bill’s default-judgment and bond provisions would meaningfully help workers. On AB 1869, members and witnesses debated whether the bill created new standards or simply improved enforcement of existing REIT rules. The committee voted to pass all of the measures heard, generally with motions to do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Several bills were held open for absent members during the meeting, and later add-on roll calls recorded additional ayes, moving the bills out of committee. The meeting concluded after the consent calendar was approved and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I do think, you know, budget started today and, you know, we'll continue.
• It will be a couple weeks and then we'll have the DESE and the due budgets before our committees.
• And part of my role at the agency includes supervision of the statewide implementation of career and
• We're currently partnering with over 200 school districts across the state implementing this model.
• And right now we have 38 school districts across the state that are implementing this prior learning

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to explore what other options for policies to support broadband affordability we have and should implement
• With the implementation of all the COVID-era infrastructure programs and the BEAD program, ideally all
• With the implementation of all the COVID-air infrastructure programs and the Bede program, ideally all
• I worked in the state legislature myself as a legislator who was on the budget committee.
• It was in last year's budget bill. It's before you again this year.

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee held an informational hearing on the state of broadband affordability in California. Chair Tasha Berner said the committee was examining how broadband prices, access, and affordability are affecting households, especially after the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program and amid concerns about federal resistance to state broadband regulation. She noted the committee’s continued interest in policy options for 2026 and referenced prior legislation, including AB 353, that would have required affordable home internet as a condition of doing business in California. Industry witnesses from U.S. Telecom and CTIA argued that broadband and wireless prices have generally fallen in real terms even as inflation and other household costs have risen, citing competition, infrastructure investment, and faster speeds as the main drivers. They said California’s higher costs are tied to permitting delays, taxes, copper theft, and legacy obligations such as COLR requirements, and they urged the Legislature to preserve market incentives, reduce fees and regulatory burdens, and support infrastructure deployment. They also discussed fixed wireless access, federal BEAD funding, and Universal Service Fund reform, arguing that more entities benefiting from networks, including tech platforms, should contribute to support programs. Consumer and public-interest witnesses presented a different view, saying California still has a serious affordability and adoption problem, especially for low-income households. Sunny McPhee of the California Emerging Technology Fund said broadband adoption has improved dramatically over time, but about 500,000 households remain offline or underconnected and many low-income households still pay above the FCC affordability benchmark. Ernesto Falcon of the CPUC Public Advocates Office said California’s market is losing its competitive edge, with prices higher than in other states and meaningful price pressure coming mainly from fiber competition at the gigabit tier. He said roughly 4.8 million Californians are limited to one gigabit option and estimated that more competition could save consumers more than $1 billion annually. Both witnesses emphasized the need for stronger transparency, targeted subsidies, and a permanent affordability solution, including extending and refining the CPUC broadband Lifeline pilot and advancing SB 716. Public commenters, including representatives from cable providers, nonprofits, and digital equity organizations, largely supported SB 716 and a permanent broadband affordability program. Several urged the committee to remove a cap on the Lifeline program, expand the CPUC pilot, and invest in digital navigators, outreach, and enrollment assistance. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, after the chair thanked the witnesses and public commenters for their testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think we just won the best implementation for the third year in a row.
• <00:11:05.200> for<00:11:05.440> the won um the best implementation for the won um
• the best implementation for the third<00:11:05.839> year<00:11:06.000> in<00:11:06.160>
• we would implement that moving forward. we would implement that moving forward.
• Um, so when we go to implement done.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <02:56:11.040> of<02:56:11.200> the such as the implementation of the such as the implementation
• <02:59:32.319> By<02:59:32.560> implementing current 25% threshold.
• By implementing current 25% threshold.
• <03:09:08.960> the and accountable for implementing the and accountable for implementing the
• the transparency angle in the budget.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, June 8, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• catastrophe of shortfalls and budget catastrophe of shortfalls and budget issues,<01:34:24.880><
• They would handle those the first six months of the implementation of the program.
• So we would gradually implement the program to ensure that it runs smoothly.
• 01:48:26.880> we<01:48:27.119> are an implementation standpoint, um we are an implementation
• first six months of the implementation first six months of the implementation of<01:49:35.679>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• we talked about a lot of issues like a representative that says he liked cutting the university's budget
• says he liked cutting<00:57:21.280> the<00:57:21.520> university's<00:57:22.160> budget
• <00:57:22.799> uh<00:57:22.960> a cutting the university's budget. uh a cutting the
• I do know that the Department of Education spent $500,000 initially in implementing that test, but had
• that test, but initially in implementing that test, but had<01:47:46.239> to<01:47:46.320>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met on HB 510 and HB 112, but the discussion focused almost entirely on HB 510, which would establish due process rights for students, student organizations, and faculty members in disciplinary proceedings at state institutions of higher education. The chair reviewed proposed amendments already approved or being considered, including revised definitions, confidentiality language for grievance information, removal of the adverse-inference language tied to self-incrimination, changes to cross-examination procedures, and narrowing an emergency exception by removing property damage and focusing on immediate threats to physical health or safety. The committee also discussed whether the hearing officer should have discretion to require a third party to conduct cross-examination, with the sponsor saying the word should remain “may” so the officer can respond to the circumstances of each case. Members opposed to the bill argued that existing campus procedures already provide adequate due process and that the proposal is unnecessary, potentially intimidating to complainants, and disruptive to university policies and collective bargaining agreements. They objected especially to language allowing the accused to be present during cross-examination of an accuser and to the use of the term “victim” before facts are established. Supporters said the bill is intended to ensure basic fairness for accused students and faculty, that the language was revised to address concerns, and that the rights listed are appropriate because serious allegations can have lasting consequences even outside the criminal context. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided; the committee remained in discussion/caucus over the bill language.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it is it is part<00:29:43.200> of<00:29:43.360> our<00:29:43.520> budget<00:
• part of our budget that we pay for that. part of our budget that we pay for that.
• Because we're sitting here in a budget year that I chair that particular budget.
• And is the Supreme Court or AOC going to come back with an additional budget request to fill this gap
• I mean, it's our budget, right? So there's a lot of staff that state budget.

Keywords: Call to Order 00:00 Roll Call 00:02 HB 526 Discussion 01:12 HB 526 Vote 37:51 HB 424 Discussion 41:41 HB 424 Vote 44:40 HB 459 Discussion 45:57 HB 459 Vote 47:26 Adjournment 48:21, 958, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 526, while House Bill 254 was removed from the agenda at the sponsor’s request. HB 526 would make bar membership and dues voluntary for Kentucky attorneys, and the sponsor argued it protects constitutional rights, prevents compelled association, and would not stop the Kentucky Supreme Court or Kentucky Bar Association from offering services such as CLE, ethics support, and lawyer assistance programs. He also argued Kentucky lawyers should not be forced to fund speech or activities they may disagree with, and urged passage of the bill. Representatives of the Kentucky Bar Association, including its president and the chair of the Young Lawyers Division, opposed the bill. They said the KBA is an arm of the Supreme Court rather than a private association, and that mandatory dues support nonpolitical services such as free continuing legal education, legal research, the Kentucky Lawyers Assistance Program, ethics guidance, mentorship, disaster relief work, and the Legal Food Frenzy. They warned that changing to a voluntary system would reduce infrastructure, increase costs for lawyers, and potentially shift more regulatory and service burdens to the Supreme Court. Members questioned whether the bill would actually prevent the KBA from continuing its programs and asked about other states’ bar structures. The sponsor and supporters pointed to Indiana and other states with voluntary bar membership, while KBA witnesses said Kentucky’s current system is efficient and constitutional and that many services are not truly free but are funded through dues. The discussion became heated at points over whether KBA testimony itself constituted political speech, and the chair intervened to keep the meeting moving. The transcript ends during member questions, with no final vote on HB 526 shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• and to avoid possible issues implemented and to avoid possible issues and<00:31:23.640> conflict<
• Meanwhile, our University of Hawaii system as a whole is facing huge budget cuts from the feds.
• Meanwhile, our University of Hawaii system as a whole is facing huge budget cuts from the feds.
• Meanwhile, our University of Hawaii system as a whole is facing huge budget cuts from the feds.
• cuts from the is facing um huge budget cuts from the feds.<00:57:08.720> Um<00:57:09.040>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A lot of times the materials require additional training for staff in order for it to be implemented
• Secondly, the line item budget. A budget that cannot be understood cannot be audited by the public.
• Secondly, the line item budget. A budget that cannot be understood cannot be audited by the public.
• Additionally, not having access to a line-item budget is a real issue.
• So we really need to have access to the line-item budget.

Summary: The committee first heard SJR 1104, a proposed constitutional amendment on voluntary religious expression in public schools. Senator Massullo said the measure would protect students and school personnel from discrimination for lawful religious expression, while not requiring prayer or religious activity. Questions focused on whether the proposal would change existing law, whether it could be used to protect coercive conduct by school officials, and whether the staff summary accurately reflected the bill. Public testimony included support from religious-freedom advocates and opposition from American Atheists and some senators who said the measure could make minority-faith students uncomfortable. The committee voted to report SJR 1104 favorably. The committee then took up SB 1738 on educational facilities, which directs state education offices to review facility requirements and recommend design and construction practices to improve safety and accountability. Senator Yarborough offered and the committee adopted an amendment removing crime-prevention-through-environmental-design language and adjusting the bill to preserve safe spaces during emergencies. The bill was reported favorably after brief discussion about balancing transparency, access control, and emergency safety. The committee also adopted a delete-all amendment to SB 824 on charter schools, replacing it with a transparency measure requiring districts to submit annual reports on unimproved land holdings to the Department of Education, which would publish a statewide report; the amended bill was then reported favorably. The committee next approved confirmation recommendations for appointees on tabs 7 and 8, then took up SPB 7036, a committee bill sponsored by Chair Simon. The package included school turnaround and early literacy changes, updates to school safety and health policies, early learning revisions, instructional changes, and educator pipeline provisions. The most contentious part was a proposal to let the state develop instructional materials; several senators questioned costs, guardrails, and whether the state should enter the textbook business. Simon said that portion was still being considered and that the bill would need safeguards if it moved forward. The committee adopted a motion to submit the bill as a committee bill and reported it favorably. Finally, the committee heard SB 1620 on public education, described by Senator Leak as a “school board members’ bill of rights.” The bill would give individual board members direct access to district documents and staff, limit district attorneys’ ability to represent both the board and administration, strengthen nepotism rules, and prohibit nondisclosure agreements for employees. Testimony from Volusia County board members, educators, and advocates was sharply divided: supporters argued the bill would improve transparency and protect minority board members, while opponents warned it could undermine superintendent authority, expose confidential student or personnel information, and create confusion in district operations. After debate, the committee voted to report SB 1620 favorably. The committee then heard SB 1170 on cameras in self-contained special education classrooms, with an amendment changing the proposal from a statewide mandate to a district policy allowing parents of students with disabilities to request cameras. Testimony was overwhelmingly supportive, centered on protecting non-speaking and vulnerable students and documenting abuse; one witness opposed the bill as an unfunded mandate. The committee was still in debate on the bill when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm done with transit, and before moving on to budgets, would you like me to pause for any questions?
• I'm done with transit, and before moving on to budgets, would you like me to pause for any questions?
• I'm done with transit, and before moving on to budgets, would you like me to pause for any questions?
• Representative Scraba, you had a question previously on budgets, sorry, on budgets.
• <01:08:30.080> uh other states that have implemented uh other states that have implemented

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Transportation Working Group met on January 15, 2025, with Chair John Kosnik opening by saying the committee expected to pass a transportation bill this year and emphasizing efficient use of transportation revenues, maintenance of roads and transit, and safety. Members and staff introduced themselves, and several representatives noted their interest in roads, bridges, and regional transportation needs. Kosnik also said he had spoken with Representative Kel about leadership arrangements and stressed that bipartisan support would be needed for a transportation bill. House Fiscal Staff’s Andrew Lee and House Research’s Matt Burus then gave an overview of transportation finance, focusing mainly on highways and transit. Burus explained Minnesota’s highway funding structure, including the constitutional Highway User Tax Distribution Fund and the related Trunk Highway Fund, County State-Aid Highway Fund, and Municipal State-Aid Street Fund. He reviewed the main revenue sources: the motor fuels tax, motor vehicle registration tax, motor vehicle sales tax, portions of the general sales tax tied to auto parts, vehicle rentals and leases, and the retail delivery fee. He noted several changes from 2023 legislation, including indexing of the gas tax, creation of the Transportation Advancement Account, and the retail delivery fee, which began in July 2024 and therefore would affect fiscal year 2025 rather than the fiscal 2024 data shown. The presentation also covered how highway dollars flow through constitutional formulas, including the 95/5 split from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, with the 5 percent set-aside used for town roads, town bridges, and flexible highway purposes such as turnbacks. Burus distinguished trunk highway bonds from general obligation bonds and explained that both are debt-financing tools for transportation projects, but with different repayment sources and uses. No votes or formal actions were taken at this informational meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• nuances of of how we plan to implement nuances of of how we plan to implement this<00:44:28.160>
• So, yeah, I guess my concern is that the amount of fines budgeted don't come close, I guess, to the budget
• Capital budget. Okay. All right.
• on uh so cap capital budget yeah capital budget<02:47:35.600> okay<02:47:36.600> all<02
• if we made it connected to the budget if we made it connected to the budget that<03:15:20.520>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the Department of Environmental Services on proposed changes in House Bill 2 and related technical changes in House Bill 1 tied to the governor’s permitting realignment initiative. The proposal would move environmental review staff from Fish and Game and DNCR to DES to create a more centralized “one-stop shop” for applicants needing DES permits, especially for wildlife and natural heritage reviews. DES said the goal is to speed permitting, support a 60-day review clock, and improve coordination among agencies while keeping the substantive review work in place. Members asked about staffing impacts, the scope of the transferred duties, and whether the change would create redundancy or weaken the other agencies. DES said most of the affected staff work primarily on these reviews, though Fish and Game staff also handle other state and federal reviews, which is why the proposal was adjusted to keep one of the four Fish and Game positions there and move three to DES, along with two positions from DNCR. DES also described a new supervisory position in HB 2 to manage the transferred staff within its land resources bureau. Officials said the reviews would still be done by specialists, but under DES supervision, and that the agencies would continue to coordinate recommendations on species impacts and mitigation. The committee also discussed fee increases intended to offset costs, including a 50% increase in wetlands fees and a 100% increase in alteration-of-terrain fees, with the department saying the changes would cover the new positions. Members raised concerns about impacts on private homeowners, possible incentives to work without permits, and whether fines should be used more as a revenue source or for mitigation. DES said wetlands permits are roughly split between homeowner-related and commercial projects, that permit-by-notification already creates a two-tier structure for smaller projects, and that enforcement relies partly on public complaints and online permitting systems. The department also said most fines currently go to the general fund and vary widely year to year, with about $75,000 budgeted, and that the proposal would also create permit-by-notification authority for alteration-of-terrain projects between 100,000 and 150,000 square feet, mirroring language in Senate Bill 110. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to lay the bill on the table and take it up as we start to put together the larger budget
• And where is that budget? Like, where is it if it's not in the trunk highway fund?
• Does the State Patrol have a budget for getting the planes that are needed, or whatever is needed?
• And where is that budget if it's not in the trunk highway fund?
• <01:24:31.560> so budget so budget so um<01:24:34.400> yeah<01:24:34.600> I'm<01

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• nor nor would you see it in the budget nor nor would you see it in the budget when<01:00:01.240>
• help project our budgets help project our budgets and<01:01:34.320> give<01:01:34.480>
• our budget system.
• And our budget system our budget system.
• Seeing none, back to Representative Bear, second time. budget." budget."

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:09:48.600> to<00:09:48.760> be that budget to be that budget to be uh<00:09:50.760
• If we go into a budget crisis, unexpended money is often at risk.
• If we go into a budget crisis, unexpended money is often at risk.
• If we go into a budget crisis, unexpended money is often at risk.
• If we go into a budget crisis, unexpended money is often at risk.

Bills: HF601, HF271, HF1101, HF979

Keywords: agriculture, depredation compensation, livestock, crop damage, elk, wolves, wildlife management, skills path program, career and technical education, CTE, dual credit, postsecondary options enrollment, apprenticeship, apprenticeship readiness, dual training, work-based learning, career pathways, skilled trades, workforce development, high school to career

Transcript Highlights:

• FBI guidelines, which are required for this pilot program established in this legislation to be implemented
• As an added note, just so you know, we gave them additional funding in the budget so that they would
• have the resources necessary to implement these changes.
• Of course, note that the teachers do not have any budget-making authority or taxing authority responsibilities
• That was based on the budget at the time. ...negotiations and the budget passed, we amended it back to

Bills: SJR27, SB7, SB27, SB57, SB66, SB140, SB293, SB413, SB437, SB467, SB506, SB510, SB512, SB571, SB710, SB785, SB800, SB850, SB863, SB865, SB904, SB905, SB973, SB974, SB1191, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1494, SB1504, SB1522, SB1567, SB1579, SB1580, SB1723, SB1760, SB1838, SB1923, SB1946, SB1957, SB1964, SB2121, SB2167, SB2221, SB2321, SB2368, SB2373, SB2407, SB2431, SB2477, SB2587, SB2615, SB2807, SB2965, SB2986, SB3039, SB3047, SB3070, SB1, SB8, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB17, SB21, SB30, SB37, SB260, SB268, SB331, SB379, SB441, SB447, SB457, SB509, SB568, SB650, SB763, SB1198, SB1405, SB1506, SB1540, SB1566, SB1610, SB1637, SB1660, SB1833, SB2018, SB2024, SB2155, SB2217, SB2308, SB2337, SB2601, SB2753, SB2778, SB2878, SB2900, SB2972, SB3059, HB4, HB145, HB300, HB493, HB2011, HB2067, HB2516, HB2525, HB2885, HB2974, HB3071, HB3372, HB3556, HB3595, HB5138, HB5246, HB40, HB46, HB119, HB705, HB1545, HB2017, HB2963, HB3642, HB3909, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3045, SB3071, HB796, HB1523, HB5294, HB748, HB3395, HB180, HB3171, HB146, HB5596, HB5694, HB1135, HB3225, HB186, HB1449, HB3793, HB112, HB104, HB3336, HB3520, HB3320, HB5663, HB2399, HB111, HB3483, HB4580, HB3748, HB632, HB4730, HB5690, HB5689, HB3385, HB4359, HB5381, HB123, HB5606, HB1057, HB3664, HCR141, HCR40, HCR59, SR695, SCR54, HCR153, HCR166, HCR168, SJR27, SB7, SB57, SB66, SB140, SB293, SB413, SB437, SB467, SB506, SB510, SB512, SB571, SB710, SB785, SB800, SB850, SB863, SB865, SB904, SB905, SB973, SB974, SB1191, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1504, SB1522, SB1567, SB1579, SB1580, SB1723, SB1760, SB1838, SB1923, SB1946, SB1957, SB1964, SB2167, SB2221, SB2321, SB2368, SB2407, SB2477, SB2587, SB2615, SB2807, SB2965, SB2986, SB3039, SB3047, SB3070, HB40, HB119, HB705, HB1545, HB2017, HB2963, HB3642, HB3909, SB17, SB21, SB509, SB1198, SB1506, SB1833, SB2155, SB2601, SB2778, HB300, HB2011

Keywords: judicial conduct, state commission, judicial misconduct, commission membership, constitutional amendment, water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, school safety, emergency operations plan, multihazard plan, mandatory drill, disaster preparedness, emergency response, students with disabilities, impairments, special education, Section 504