Transcript Highlights:

• And so really, the way we evaluate this, yes, is it capacity? And then we evaluate skill set.
• And it also includes our workforce benefit applicants.
• Near the start of the school year, they have to provide paper applications or make paper applications
• The application process... Such as SNAP or TANF.
• And we have since then opened up another round of applications, which I believe there's already 103 applications

Summary: The committee met to receive a series of audit presentations, beginning with the statewide Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for fiscal year 2025. The State Auditor’s Office and OMB reported a clean, unmodified opinion for the state, with strong financial results including a $40.6 billion net position, $30.99 billion in assets, $1.81 billion in liabilities, and continued Legacy Fund growth. OMB also explained the new GASB 101 compensated-absences reporting change and discussed pension-liability fluctuations tied to discount-rate assumptions and investment performance. Members asked about how the state compares to others and about the effect of short-term commodity price swings, and OMB said the report reflects actual fiscal-year results rather than forecasts. The committee then heard the University System audit, which also received a clean opinion but included four findings: misreporting of Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund revenue, insufficient monitoring of service organizations at CTS, NDSU, and UND, improper bank reconciliations at Dakota College of Bottineau, Dickinson State, and Williston State, and investment/cash reconciliation problems at Bismarck State College related to bond proceeds. University officials agreed with the findings and said corrective actions were underway, including internal review of bank reconciliations. Members raised questions about NDSU’s use of certificates of deposit, and university staff explained that CDs are used to earn interest on funds being accumulated for future projects. Several other audits were presented, most with clean opinions and no findings, including the State Auditor’s Office, Workforce Safety and Insurance, Housing Finance Agency, Housing Incentive Fund, Job Service North Dakota, the Retirement and Investment Office, PERS, the Center for Distance Education, the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents, the Ethics Commission, and the Office of Administrative Hearings. Notable exceptions included a State Fair Association audit with an adverse opinion on the foundation component unit because its financial statements were not available for audit, and a Securities Department performance audit finding that performance-based pay increases and bonuses were issued without required evaluations. The committee also discussed the State Auditor’s future needs, including more staff capacity, data analytics, cybersecurity reviews, possible subpoena authority, independent legal counsel, and whether some audits—such as the Ethics Commission and State Fair—should be handled by independent third parties or under different statutory arrangements.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have successfully transitioned from initial planning into active operational evaluation.
• There might be directives to do an evaluation of a particular program.
• So the non-depositories' income comes from new license applications, renewal applications, and examination
• Is it 1979 or 2005 on their application fee?
• And then there are application fees for the different types of centers that we license.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:51:26.079> instead proposal to have one evaluation instead proposal to have one evaluation
• <00:53:23.640> for could do the fitness evaluations for could do the fitness evaluations for
• <01:05:36.480> and in the certification evaluation and in the certification evaluation and
• 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.

Transcript Highlights:

• You have a staff FTE count, if applicable.
• Left, you have a staff FTE count, if applicable.
• We also help with evaluation plans, collecting and analyzing evaluation data.
• Our deadline is today for applications.
• I participated in the evaluation.

Summary: The committee held its first meeting of the session and received an overview of the Higher Education Appropriations budget from staff director Tim Elwell. He explained the committee’s broad jurisdiction over universities, state colleges, district workforce programs, vocational rehabilitation, blind services, student financial aid, private colleges, and the Board of Governors, and reviewed key budget concepts such as local funds, funds per FTE, performance funding, and the distinction between the total appropriation and the recurring base budget. He noted that higher education is funded largely through state and local sources, with substantial flexibility compared with other state budgets, and that the base budget is heavily weighted toward lump-sum allocations to the public systems. The committee then heard a presentation from the University of South Florida’s Florida Center for Cybersecurity (Cyber Florida), led by retired Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie and USF representative Mark Walsh. They described Cyber Florida as a statewide cybersecurity platform created by the Legislature in 2014 to support education, research, workforce development, public policy, and community engagement. McKenzie emphasized the growing cyber threat environment, Florida’s leadership role, and several funded initiatives, including K-12 outreach, workforce training, a cyber range for county governments, critical infrastructure assessments, grant development, and public conferences and outreach. Members asked about public cyber awareness, the lack of a national cyber defense strategy, school district participation in Cyber Launch, and which counties are most at risk; McKenzie said smaller counties with limited cybersecurity staffing are generally more vulnerable and offered to provide follow-up information. Finally, the committee heard from the Florida Center for Students with Unique Abilities at the University of Central Florida, led by Dr. Drew Andrews, along with program and parent representatives from participating institutions. Andrews explained the center’s role in coordinating Florida’s postsecondary comprehensive transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities, supporting program development, distributing grants and scholarships, and monitoring outcomes. He reported that the state now has 33 approved programs at 35 institutions, including universities, state colleges, and technical colleges, and that scholarship and grant funding has grown significantly. He said student retention is about 88 percent, many graduates are employed, and median hourly earnings have increased over time. A representative from Southeastern University described how the center’s support helped build and sustain SEU Link, including a new third-year employment-focused option for students.

Transcript Highlights:

• They are screened by staff, and then a faculty committee reviews the applications.
• In years where there are lots of applications, our median LSAT goes up.
• served on the admissions committee and there's an application, I have a question from an applicant where
• To interview all of the applicants who have applied.
• Do you hear, as a dean, any concerns expressed from your applicants? You may or may not.

Bills: SB1, SB3

Keywords: interstate medical licensure compact, physician licensure, medical license reciprocity, expedited licensure, medical practice act, New Mexico medical board, compact commission, physician mobility, telemedicine, license portability, background check, disciplinary action, joint investigation, reproductive health care, gender-affirming care, scope of practice, medical board transparency, multistate compact, licensure renewal, health care workforce

Transcript Highlights:

• this legislation to suspend applications this legislation to suspend applications for<01:02:31.720
• permit is issued to an to an applicant permit is issued to an to an applicant they<01:36:32.440>
• is that when we receive an application is that when we receive an application particularly<01:40
• <01:41:23.360> with and comment on the application with and comment on the application with
• would be acted on. evaluation committee and essentially evaluation committee and essentially create<

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I'm not sure whether you were there when we did the site evaluation committee.
• when we did the site evaluation when we did the site evaluation committee.<00:07:53.919> Um
• >> I think that the site evaluation >> I think that the site evaluation committee<00
• One of them is evaluation committee.
• <00:13:33.200> I waste site evaluation committee. I waste site evaluation committee.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we would look to the number two provider in the application process.
• We do have an evaluator with our program that evaluates all of our programs.
• We do have an evaluator with our program that evaluates all of our programs.
• We do have an evaluator with our program that evaluates all of our programs.
• Did they not submit one with the application?" "Oh, no. They have an address.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we'll have updated application.
• We had 2,793 students use the portfolio evaluation method.
• They have the ability to go out and have an independent evaluation.
• Your doctor has to do the evaluation.
• EFA first, education tax credit. >> Yes, there are two different applications, two different online applications

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:

• under the current evaluation process. under the current evaluation process.
• receive the evaluation upon request. receive the evaluation upon request.
• evaluated now? I believe it's 94. evaluated now? I believe it's 94.
• performance evaluation. performance evaluation.
• any oversight on case evaluation time. any oversight on case evaluation time.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee began a work session on House Bill 1600, concerning access to the centralized voter registration database on election days. Secretary of State David Scanlan testified that the state already has a new statewide voter registration system connected to town clerks and supervisors of the checklist, and that the bill was probably unnecessary but acceptable if the legislature wanted it. He raised concern about language that could require direct electronic access in every polling place, noting that some polling locations lack reliable internet or cell service and that municipalities can change polling locations, which could make a rigid requirement expensive and impractical. Members discussed whether the bill should be clarified to allow direct or indirect access, including use of a phone-based workaround, and the secretary said that would address his concern. The committee then voted on HB 1600. Representative Maguire moved ought to pass with an amendment adding “direct or indirect access” on page one, line seven, and the motion was seconded. The amendment was adopted 9-0 by voice vote, and the committee then voted 9-0 to OTP the bill. The chair stated that HB 1600 would be placed on consent. The committee next took up House Bill 1197F FN, a technical correction to insurance laws. Members noted it had already passed the House with amendment and that the fiscal note was effectively indeterminate but would not affect the general fund because the insurance agency is self-funded. The committee voted 9-0 to OTP the bill; the chair said consent calendar placement would be decided by the full committee. Finally, the committee opened a work session on House Bill 11:30 FN regarding judicial performance evaluations. Representative Lynn, the bill’s sponsor, argued that the fiscal note overstated the immediate cost and said the judicial branch could likely manage through the current biennium while implementing the new system. He also supported making judges’ names public and said the bill’s anonymity provisions were aimed at protecting the identities of questionnaire respondents, not the judges being evaluated. Members asked about public disclosure, internal access to evaluation materials, and the removal of language allowing the governor and executive council to receive evaluations on request; discussion continued on those points, but no final vote on HB 11:30 FN was taken in the portion provided.

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:

• We've learned a lot about the application process.
• We've learned a lot about the application process.
• In addition, CARB found that 60% of the applicants who were successful in applying completed the application
• And this is due to some applicants not qualifying or applicants not being responsive after they filled
• out the initial application.

Summary: The committee hearing focused heavily on CARB’s broad trailer bill request for regulatory fee authority. Finance and CARB argued the proposal would let CARB develop fees to recover reasonable costs for implementing and enforcing regulations, while the LAO recommended rejection because the authority was too broad, could apply to an entire division of code, and would delegate core legislative taxing/fee-setting power without enough guardrails. Members from both parties raised concerns about the breadth of the authority, accountability, affordability impacts, and whether the Legislature would be put in an up-or-down position after CARB had already developed regulations. CARB responded that fees would still go through a budget change proposal and legislative approval before collection, and cited existing examples such as transport refrigeration units and commercial harborcraft fees. The committee then reviewed CARB’s request for permanent resources to implement SB 905 on carbon capture, utilization, storage, and carbon dioxide removal. CARB said the Legislature had previously authorized limited-term positions and funding, but it had struggled to recruit and retain staff with specialized regulatory and technical expertise, and that the work had included pre-rulemaking contracts, technology review, and permit-related preparation. Members questioned the pace of work, the use of limited-term positions, and whether additional permitting authority would be needed. CARB said it hoped to begin rulemaking later in the year if permanent resources were approved. Members also discussed the cap-and-trade spending plan, noting lower-than-expected auction revenues but higher interest earnings, and the need to monitor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and possible May Revision changes. The committee then heard overviews of the zero-emission vehicle package, the Community Air Protection Program, demand-side grid support, and e-bike incentives. CARB described ongoing investments in community-based transportation equity, drayage trucks, harbor craft, and other clean technology demonstrations, while members pressed on affordability, program duplication, and whether enough funding was being directed to incentive programs. No formal votes were taken during the portion provided, and the chair repeatedly indicated that the hearing was intended to surface concerns for later budget negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Evaluation of MCO provider networks.
• To a little bit the application process itself, right?
• Application or application state give you more business because now you will be statewide?
• I'm sorry, they have an application? Applications. Okay. Correct.
• Application state or file and compete.

Bills: HB149, HB252, HB643, HB1442, HB1500, HB1672, HB1851, HB1893, HB2028, HB2768, HB2818, HB149, HB252

Keywords: artificial intelligence, regulation, biometric data, ethical AI, consumer protection, AI governance, employment compensation, state agencies, salary payments, general appropriations, government efficiency, public works, contractors, payment bonds, government contracts, construction law, transparency, open meetings, government accountability, public access

Transcript Highlights:

• They also are responsible for reviewing Cancer Innovation Fund applications.
• Last fiscal year, we received 261 applications requesting over $216 million.
• As stated previously, we did have 261 applicants who...
• And so, as stated previously, we did have 261 applicants who requested over $260 million.
• And I know that is set up with peer review to evaluate the process.

Summary: The committee first received an update from the Department of Health on the Cancer Connect Collaborative, the Cancer Innovation Fund, and the new Cancer Connect Collaborative Research Incubator, created and expanded by recent legislation. The department reported that the Cancer Innovation Fund has awarded $80 million to 95 researchers to date, with $60 million available in the current cycle and 65 projects funded across 28 institutions in 16 cancer areas last year. The new pediatric cancer incubator received $30 million and awarded four Florida children’s hospitals $7.5 million each. Senators asked about outreach to oncologists statewide, peer review and accountability, funding for National Cancer Institute-affiliated institutions, and whether underserved and rural areas are being prioritized; the department said it uses website notices, listservs, collaborative outreach, and eligibility criteria favoring rural and high-cancer-care providers, and that it monitors projects through reports, expenditures, and contract provisions. The committee then heard Senate Bill 312 on patient-directed medical orders, which would create a voluntary, portable, physician-authorized electronic registry for patients to document end-of-life and serious-illness treatment preferences. Supporters, including nurses, hospice and emergency care advocates, and medical professionals, said the bill would help ensure patient wishes are accessible in emergencies, reduce unwanted interventions, and improve continuity of care. Opponents, including Florida Right to Life, argued the bill could broaden end-of-life decisions too far, raise privacy and coercion concerns, and allow withdrawal of care inappropriately. The sponsor said the measure is intended to support patient autonomy and is not anti-life, and noted she was open to amendments. After public testimony, the committee voted on SB 312 and reported it favorably. The roll call showed support from Senators Berman and Harrell, with the bill passing on the committee vote. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• States are required to submit midpoint evaluations and then evaluations at the end of the waiver period
• And at a minimum, more evaluations are needed.
• Were these considered in your evaluation?
• Were these considered in your evaluation?
• evaluations.

Summary: The meeting focused heavily on behavioral health and substance use treatment, especially the IMD exclusion and whether North Dakota should pursue a Section 1115 waiver to allow Medicaid reimbursement for services in institutions for mental diseases for adults ages 21 to 64. Turtle Mountain representatives described major local needs, including limited access to care, high syphilis rates, and the importance of timely public health data. They also discussed the tribe’s recovery center, which opened the prior year, now operating five levels of care with 16 beds, and the desire to expand capacity, possibly through an IMD waiver or related policy changes. Committee members also raised related issues such as rural health transformation funding, telehealth, workforce retention, and the need for better coordination between tribal and state public health systems. A central issue was Turtle Mountain Public Health’s long-running effort to secure a data use agreement with the state so it can receive surveillance data and respond directly to infectious disease cases among tribal members. Speakers said the tribe had a successful COVID-era agreement that allowed faster contact tracing and case management, but that agreement ended with the pandemic. They argued that current delays in sharing data, especially for sexually transmitted infections, leave the tribe unable to respond quickly, while the state and county epidemiology workload is too distant and stretched to be effective. Committee members expressed support and said they would look into the issue, noting that other tribes have secured similar agreements. The committee also heard a detailed presentation from the National Health Law Program on the IMD exclusion. The presenter explained that federal Medicaid law generally bars payment for care in facilities with more than 16 beds, but that states can use other tools such as state plan amendments, managed care arrangements, telehealth, and community-based services. He said IMD waivers are administratively complex, time-limited, and have shown mixed results in other states, with some gains in residential treatment access but limited evidence of improved overdose outcomes or stronger community-based care. He urged the committee to consider broader continuum-of-care solutions and cautioned that waivers alone are not a cure-all. No final vote was taken on the bill draft during the portion shown, but the committee discussed the proposal to appropriate $49,000 and one FTE to HHS to pursue an IMD waiver and report back in the next interim. Members also debated the policy rationale for the 16-bed limit, the role of the state versus tribal sovereignty, and whether the bill should move through the Health Care or Human Services committee in the future.

Transcript Highlights:

• It means a flexible application. The intent of the legislation.
• It means a flexible application to achieve that intent.
• Deliberate, decide, evaluate.
• The reason for receiving any new disability benefits applications.
• It hasn't been evaluated in the 30 years since the plans were created.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy approved its minutes by roll call vote, then postponed an OSA annual update due to a family emergency. The committee received an Open Public Meetings Act refresher from Assistant Attorney General Kate Adams, who reviewed key compliance points including quorum and serial meetings, notice and agenda rules, executive session limits, public comment requirements, and the consequences of violations. She also noted a litigation hold notice sent to members and provided resources for further guidance. Staff then briefed the committee on E2 Second Substitute House Bill 2034, which restates and terminates LEOFF 1 on June 30, 2029, creates a restated LEOFF 1 funded by transferred assets, and places excess assets into a pension surplus holding account that could later be used by the state. The bill requires DRS to seek IRS guidance, directs OSA to calculate the transfer amount and assess any future unfunded liability, assigns implementation duties to DRS, OSA, the Pension Funding Council, the State Investment Board, and the Treasurer, and requires two SCPP studies on LEOFF 1 medical benefits and policy oversight. OSA’s actuary estimated the transfer to the surplus holding account at about $3.9 billion under current assumptions and said the bill increases the modeled chance of future state contributions if the restated plan falls below 100% funded; members asked about IRS timing, the 2029 transfer date, and whether the 110% buffer is sufficient. The committee also received an update on the LEOFF 1 medical benefits study required by the bill. Staff said the study will examine the administration of pension boards and medical liabilities, likely focusing on medical benefits, and will gather anonymized data from local boards, cities, counties, and related agencies over the next three years. Members and public commenters discussed the number and structure of local boards, whether spouses receive medical benefits, and the possibility of regionalizing or consolidating administration. No action was taken, but staff said they would return with milestones and further updates. Finally, staff outlined a possible Plan 3 study, prompted by DRS, to evaluate whether the original goals of Plan 3 have been met after 30 years. The proposed study would review historical context, member choice outcomes, policy questions, and possible recommendations over a two-year period. The committee also heard an update on new correspondence procedures, including a new online web form, a correspondence log in meeting packets, and removal of correspondence from the public website. During public comment, retiree groups urged the committee to pursue an ongoing COLA for PERS and TRS Plan 1, with interim ad hoc COLAs until then, while LEOFF 1 retirees urged caution about changing the current board structure and emphasized the complexity of medical benefit administration.

Transcript Highlights:

• And absolutely no guardrails around cost-effectiveness or evaluation.
• On lessons learned, we've learned a lot about the application process.
• CARB found that 60% of the applicants who were successful in applying completed the application process
• application.
• Also, they need assistance to get through the application process, right?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're there to help them with that application.
• We also help with evaluation plans collecting and analyzing evaluation data as I tell programs along
• They also provide funding for the evaluation as you've heard.
• We wanted to program evaluation.
• And I think that the evaluation will speak to that.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, if you're a new applicant, got them. So, if you're a new applicant, got them.
• So, if you're a new applicant, got to do it. If your license was removed to do it.
• shall so that an eligible applicant shall so that an eligible applicant shall notify the commission
• The applicant has to notify them of applicant has to notify them of applicant has to notify them of information
• of shall inform the eligible applicant of shall inform the eligible applicant of what their decision

Bills: HB 1535, HB 123, HB 111, HB 180, HB 342, HB 1027, HB 1178, HB 610, HB 1277, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 5342, HB 4885, HB 4751, HB 4689, HB 4530, HB 4488, HB 2149, HB 2041, HB 2071, HB 1813, HB 2282, HB 2248, HB 2243, HB 2522, HB 2310, HB 2513, HB 2300, HB 1902, HB 3719, HB 4284, HB 4327, HB 3743, HB 3778, HB 3801, HB 5153, HB 5147, HB 4877, HB 4850, HB 3158, HB 3261, HB 3005, HB 3033, HB 3138, HB 3099, HB 2849, HB 2967, HB 3488, HB 3477, HB 3466, HB 3396, HB 3469, HB 2594, HB 2776, HB 2564, HB 2298, HB 5331, HB 5646, HB 5247, HB 5323, HB 2015, HB 4384, HB 3896, HB 4014, HB 3627, HB 3594, HB 2524, HB 510, HB 561, HB 5111, HB 5446, HB 1181, HB 3963, HB 2785, HB 1661, HB 2460, HB 24, HJR 138, HB 3800, HB 42, HB 129, HB 677, HB 668, HB 2128, HB 2038, HB 2316, HB 3686, HB 2563, HB 1160, HB 3883, HB 2788, HB 2663, HB 3305, HB 3474, HB 1105, HB 3490, HB 3597, HB 1295, HB 3512, HB 3783, HB 2017, HB 3010, HB 3112, HB 4215, HB 3223, HB 3464, HB 3120, HB 4214, HB 4081, HB 4783, HB 4063, HB 2783, HB 5085, HB 2510, HB 3426, HB 4361, HB 1169, HB 2516, HB 4700, HB 3560, HB 3860, HB 3146, HB 184, HB 198, HB 247, HB 367, HB 449, HB 1778, HB 514, HB 632, HB 2582, HB 766, HB 2715, HB 2712, HB 3069, HB 3505, HB 1269, HB 4224, HB 5032, HB 2240, HB 5180, HB 3348, HB 4668, HB 4665, HB 3395, HB 3157, HB 4395, HB 4325, HB 4386, HB 4273, HB 2760, HB 2820, HB 1828, HB 1579, SB 2349, SB 1268, SB 610, SB 1577, SB 1369, SB 2032, SB 2034, SB 1057, SB 1044, SB 922, SB 1759, SB 1143, SB 1506, SB 1403, SB 2361, SB 870, SB 372, SB 72, SB 1583, SB 2314, SB 1267, SB 1273, SB 765, SB 552, HB 2145, HJR 112, HB 1804, HJR 110, HB 1194, HB 1531, HB 5008, HB 3421, SCR 27, HB 5398, HB 1407, HB 426, HB 1535, HB 123, HB 1773, HB 1871, HB 2035, HB 2448, HB 2492, HB 1411, HB 4753, HB 4666, HB 4529, HB 1499, HB 1610, HB 2028, HB 1506, HB 886, HB 3546, HB 796, HB 223, HB 1475, HB 3556, HB 4638, HB 111, HB 180, HB 342, HB 1027, HB 1178, HB 610, HB 1277, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 5342, HB 4885, HB 4751, HB 4689, HB 4530, HB 4488, HB 2149, HB 2041, HB 2071, HB 1813, HB 2282, HB 2248, HB 2243, HB 2522, HB 2310, HB 2513, HB 2300, HB 1902, HB 3719, HB 4284, HB 4327, HB 3743, HB 3778, HB 3801, HB 5153, HB 5147, HB 4877, HB 4850, HB 3158, HB 3261, HB 3005, HB 3033, HB 3138, HB 3099, HB 2849, HB 2967, HB 3488, HB 3477, HB 3466, HB 3396, HB 3469, HB 2594, HB 2776, HB 2564, HB 2298, HB 5331, HB 5646, HB 5247, HB 5323, HB 2015, HB 4384, HB 3896, HB 4014, HB 3627, HB 3594, HB 2524, HB 510, HB 561, HB 5111, HB 5446, HB 1181, HB 3963, HB 2785, HB 1661, HB 2460, HCR 98, HCR 92, HCR 126

Keywords: Trinity River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, board of directors, governor appointment, public water authority, regional water authority, water resources, local government, natural resources, board training, ethics, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, complaint procedures, public comment, director removal, governance reform

Transcript Highlights:

• HB3120 by Tepper, relating to the application of the open meetings law and public information law to
• This allows us to evaluate long-term electric transmission projects in Iraq. I move passage.
• The fact that you would want statewide application does not comport with... You got a minute? Okay.
• And this can be done during their license applications, completely voluntary, and the bill allows for
• Board, expanding applicability of surcharges for the Committee on Public Health.

Bills: HB1535, HB 123, HB 111, HB180, HB342, HB 1027, HB 1178, HB610, HB 1277, HB1615, HB1620, HB5342, HB4885, HB4751, HB4689, HB4530, HB4488, HB2149, HB2041, HB2071, HB1813, HB2282, HB2248, HB2243, HB2522, HB2310, HB2513, HB2300, HB1902, HB3719, HB4284, HB4327, HB3743, HB3778, HB3801, HB5153, HB5147, HB4877, HB4850, HB3158, HB3261, HB3005, HB3033, HB3138, HB3099, HB2849, HB2967, HB3488, HB3477, HB3466, HB3396, HB3469, HB2594, HB2776, HB2564, HB2298, HB5331, HB5646, HB5247, HB5323, HB2015, HB4384, HB3896, HB4014, HB3627, HB3594, HB2524, HB510, HB561, HB5111, HB5446, HB 1181, HB3963, HB2785, HB1661, HB2460, HB24, HJR138, HB3800, HB42, HB 129, HB677, HB668, HB2128, HB2038, HB2316, HB3686, HB2563, HB 1160, HB3883, HB2788, HB2663, HB3305, HB3474, HB 1105, HB3490, HB3597, HB 1295, HB3512, HB3783, HB2017, HB3010, HB3112, HB4215, HB3223, HB3464, HB3120, HB4214, HB4081, HB4783, HB4063, HB2783, HB5085, HB2510, HB3426, HB4361, HB 1169, HB2516, HB4700, HB3560, HB3860, HB3146, HB184, HB198, HB247, HB367, HB449, HB1778, HB514, HB632, HB2582, HB766, HB2715, HB2712, HB3069, HB3505, HB 1269, HB4224, HB5032, HB2240, HB5180, HB3348, HB4668, HB4665, HB3395, HB3157, HB4395, HB4325, HB4386, HB4273, HB2760, HB2820, HB1828, HB1579, SB2349, SB1268, SB610, SB1577, SB1369, SB2032, SB2034, SB1057, SB1044, SB922, SB1759, SB1143, SB1506, SB1403, SB2361, SB870, SB372, SB72, SB1583, SB2314, SB1267, SB1273, SB765, SB552, HB2145, HJR112, HB1804, HJR110, HB 1194, HB1531, HB5008, HB3421, SCR27, HB5398, HB1407, HB426, HB1535, HB 123, HB1773, HB1871, HB2035, HB2448, HB2492, HB1411, HB4753, HB4666, HB4529, HB1499, HB1610, HB2028, HB1506, HB886, HB3546, HB796, HB223, HB1475, HB3556, HB4638, HB 111, HB180, HB342, HB 1027, HB 1178, HB610, HB 1277, HB1615, HB1620, HB5342, HB4885, HB4751, HB4689, HB4530, HB4488, HB2149, HB2041, HB2071, HB1813, HB2282, HB2248, HB2243, HB2522, HB2310, HB2513, HB2300, HB1902, HB3719, HB4284, HB4327, HB3743, HB3778, HB3801, HB5153, HB5147, HB4877, HB4850, HB3158, HB3261, HB3005, HB3033, HB3138, HB3099, HB2849, HB2967, HB3488, HB3477, HB3466, HB3396, HB3469, HB2594, HB2776, HB2564, HB2298, HB5331, HB5646, HB5247, HB5323, HB2015, HB4384, HB3896, HB4014, HB3627, HB3594, HB2524, HB510, HB561, HB5111, HB5446, HB 1181, HB3963, HB2785, HB1661, HB2460, HCR98, HCR92, HCR126

Keywords: Trinity River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, board of directors, governor appointment, public water authority, regional water authority, water resources, local government, natural resources, board training, ethics, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, complaint procedures, public comment, director removal, governance reform