Bills: HR113, HCR121, HR152, HCR162, SB2835, HR61, HCR67, HR94, HCR102, HR20, HCR19, HR98, HCR106, HR57, HCR63, HR96, HCR104, HR132, HCR140, HR133, HCR141, HR77, HCR85, HR90, HCR98, HR155, HCR165, HR156, HCR166, HR74, HCR82, HR190, HCR200, HR15, HCR13, HR83, HCR91, HR117, HCR125, HR193, HCR203, HR119, HCR127, HR114, HCR122, HR116, HCR124, HR22, HCR22, HR120, HCR128, HR32, HCR32, HR115, HCR123, HR138, HCR146, HR182, HCR192, HR88, HCR96, HR50, HCR54, HR169, HCR179, HR170, HCR180, HR31, HCR31, HR86, HCR94, HR23, HCR24, HR7, HCR8, HR12, HCR10, HR136, HCR144, HR108, HCR116, HR33, HCR33, HR175, HCR185, HR129, HCR137, HR192, HCR202, HR194, HCR204, HR19, HCR18, HR131, HCR139, HR163, HCR173, HR109, HCR117, HR56

Keywords: Hawaii, House Resolution, HR113, Mermaid Caves, Nanakuli, coastal hazards, sea caves, shoreline safety, public safety, digital maps, navigation apps, Google Maps, Apple Maps, point of interest, recreational destination, emergency response, drownings, rescues, cave safety, DLNR

Bills: HR113, HCR121, HR152, HCR162, SB2835, HR61, HCR67, HR94, HCR102, HR20, HCR19, HR98, HCR106, HR57, HCR63, HR96, HCR104, HR132, HCR140, HR133, HCR141, HR77, HCR85, HR90, HCR98, HR155, HCR165, HR156, HCR166, HR74, HCR82, HR190, HCR200, HR15, HCR13, HR83, HCR91, HR117, HCR125, HR193, HCR203, HR119, HCR127, HR114, HCR122, HR116, HCR124, HR22, HCR22, HR120, HCR128, HR32, HCR32, HR115, HCR123, HR138, HCR146, HR182, HCR192, HR88, HCR96, HR50, HCR54, HR169, HCR179, HR170, HCR180, HR31, HCR31, HR86, HCR94, HR23, HCR24, HR7, HCR8, HR12, HCR10, HR136, HCR144, HR108, HCR116, HR33, HCR33, HR175, HCR185, HR129, HCR137, HR192, HCR202, HR194, HCR204, HR19, HCR18, HR131, HCR139, HR163, HCR173, HR109, HCR117, HR56

Keywords: Hawaii, House Resolution, HR113, Mermaid Caves, Nanakuli, coastal hazards, sea caves, shoreline safety, public safety, digital maps, navigation apps, Google Maps, Apple Maps, point of interest, recreational destination, emergency response, drownings, rescues, cave safety, DLNR

Transcript Highlights:

• For them, because look right here in the bill analysis, it says this bill requires health benefit plans
• Those are definitions that the bill analysis really talks about, which are regarding the intent, not
• I think the intent of this legislation, particularly as we look at the bill analysis, has to really line
• Our 2025 analysis shows high-quality child care remains scarce across our state.

Bills: HJR144, HJR218, HB40, HB 101, HB 112, HB146, HB168, HB214, HB413, HB1523, HB493, HB521, HB594, HB557, HB305, HB549, HB854, HB 1057, HB 1052, HB842, HB3174, HB3311, HB2486, HB3196, HB824, HB 1039, HB2529, HB2713, HB4936, HB4995, HB4830, HB4864, HB5219, HB5263, HB5154, HB2674, HB5525, HB5623, HB2545, HB2587, HB2625, HB5520, HB5436, HB4926, HB1573, HB5165, HB4811, HB5081, HB4755, HB3179, HB4310, HB4611, HB2159, HB4626, HB3637, HB3153, HB3066, HB2786, HB2966, HB638, HB640, HB876, HB497, HB5539, HB4809, HB5308, HB4687, HB4070, HB4421, HB4412, HB3284, HB3369, HB3420, HB3449, HB4098, HB4281, HB4120, HB4504, HB4370, HB 1106, HB2370, HB2404, HB3863, HB2407, HB2253, HB2273, HB2040, HB1586, HB3788, HB3993, HB4690, HB4309, HB4696, HB2308, HB 1142, HB1533, HB1621, HB2242, HB2012, HB2193, HB2442, HB2464, HB2348, HB2313, HB2289, HB1942, HB2011, HB1629, HB2993, HB3592, HB3824, HB4076, HB4535, HB4623, HB4773, HB 1091, HB5115, HB5515, HB3372, HB5659, HCR118, HB 1233, HB2239, HB2379, HB2863, HB3368, HB3787, HB3815, HB3898, HB4023, HB4285, HB4329, HB4331, HB4429, HB4646, HB4904, HB5200, HB5320, HB5651, HB5662, HB5668, HB5670, HB5672, HB5674, HB5676, HB5679, HB5688, HCR108

Keywords: regional mobility, transportation authority, local law, constitutional amendment, public projects, Texas energy fund, energy efficiency, retail electric customers, electric generating facilities, business court, civil procedure, litigation, jurisdiction, arbitration, Texas State Guard, task force, professionalization, state missions, critical infrastructure, science park district

Transcript Highlights:

• We want to make sure they have goals and aftercare that can help support them longitudinally.

Keywords: 1183, house

Bills: HJR 99, HB 1399, HB 1400, HB 1094, HB 365, HB 1109, HB 647, HCR 35, SB 14, HB 12, HB 1522, HB 422, HB 675, HB 204, HB 748, HB 912, HJR 99, HB 1399, HB 1400, HB 1094, HB 365, HB 1109, HB 647, HCR 35, HCR 123, HCR 124, HR 57, HR 87, HR 111, HR 228, HR 230, HR 322, HR 624, HR 625, HR 626, HR 627, HR 628, HR 630, HR 631, HR 634, HR 635, HR 636, HR 637, HR 638, HR 639, HR 640, HR 645, HR 646, HR 648, HR 649, HR 651, HR 652, HR 653, HR 654, HR 664, HR 665, HR 668, HR 675, HR 676, HR 678, HR 679, HR 680, HR 683, HR 686, HR 688, HR 689, HR 694, HR 695, HR 697, HR 698, HR 699, HR 472, HR 622, HR 632, HR 633, HR 643, HR 655, HR 657, HR 660, HR 661, HR 662, HR 663, HR 667, HR 670, HR 674, HR 681, HR 682, HR 696

Keywords: animal feed, tax exemption, ad valorem taxation, retail, constitutional amendment, retail sale, tangible personal property, Texas tax code, groundwater, water conservation, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, innovation fund, local conservation districts, transportation protection agreement, funeral services, insurance exemption, regulation, deceased transportation, HB 365

Bills: HJR 99, HB 1399, HB 1400, HB 1094, HB 365, HB 1109, HB 647, HCR 35, SB 14, HB 12, HB 1522, HB 422, HB 675, HB 204, HB 748, HB 912, HJR 99, HB 1399, HB 1400, HB 1094, HB 365, HB 1109, HB 647, HCR 35, HCR 123, HCR 124, HR 57, HR 87, HR 111, HR 228, HR 230, HR 322, HR 624, HR 625, HR 626, HR 627, HR 628, HR 630, HR 631, HR 634, HR 635, HR 636, HR 637, HR 638, HR 639, HR 640, HR 645, HR 646, HR 648, HR 649, HR 651, HR 652, HR 653, HR 654, HR 664, HR 665, HR 668, HR 675, HR 676, HR 678, HR 679, HR 680, HR 683, HR 686, HR 688, HR 689, HR 694, HR 695, HR 697, HR 698, HR 699, HR 472, HR 622, HR 632, HR 633, HR 643, HR 655, HR 657, HR 660, HR 661, HR 662, HR 663, HR 667, HR 670, HR 674, HR 681, HR 682, HR 696

Keywords: animal feed, tax exemption, ad valorem taxation, retail, constitutional amendment, retail sale, tangible personal property, Texas tax code, groundwater, water conservation, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, innovation fund, local conservation districts, transportation protection agreement, funeral services, insurance exemption, regulation, deceased transportation, HB 365

Bills: HJR99, HB1399, HB1400, HB 1094, HB365, HB 1109, HB647, HCR35, SB14, HB 12, HB1522, HB422, HB675, HB204, HB748, HB912, HJR99, HB1399, HB1400, HB 1094, HB365, HB 1109, HB647, HCR35, HCR123, HCR124, HR57, HR87, HR111, HR228, HR230, HR322, HR624, HR625, HR626, HR627, HR628, HR630, HR631, HR634, HR635, HR636, HR637, HR638, HR639, HR640, HR645, HR646, HR648, HR649, HR651, HR652, HR653, HR654, HR664, HR665, HR668, HR675, HR676, HR678, HR679, HR680, HR683, HR686, HR688, HR689, HR694, HR695, HR697, HR698, HR699, HR472, HR622, HR632, HR633, HR643, HR655, HR657, HR660, HR661, HR662, HR663, HR667, HR670, HR674, HR681, HR682, HR696

Keywords: animal feed, tax exemption, ad valorem taxation, retail, constitutional amendment, retail sale, tangible personal property, Texas tax code, groundwater, water conservation, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, innovation fund, local conservation districts, transportation protection agreement, funeral services, insurance exemption, regulation, deceased transportation, HB 365

Bills: HB4319, HB4317, HB1225, HB3076, HB3081, HB4226, SCR17, HB4432, HB3304, HB3411, HB3435, HB4339, HB4331, HB4341, HB4342, HB1770, HB1016, HB4113, HB2950, HB4141, HB3277, HB2988, HB3029, HB3338, HB1889, HB3834, HB3831, HB2939, HB3045, HB3657, HB1739, HB3759, HB3755, HB4484, HB4486, HB4108, HB1250, HB2961, HB1219, HB3025, HB1782, HB1907, HB3718, HB4459, HB2976, HB3548, HB3545, HB2952, HB2929, HB2956, HB2973, HB3055, HB3086, HB3040, HB3794, HB4336, HB3151, HB1590, HB3581, HB3313, HB3429, HB3448, HB1752, HB2650, HB3584, HB4202, HB3586, HB4321, HB4280, HB3650, HCR1020, HB2116, HB2206, HB4301, HB3625, HB3147, HB3403, HB3498, HB3970, HB3975, HB3976, HB3980, HB4265, HB4266, HB3638, HB3880, HB3930, HB3942, HB3944, HB4191, HB3242, HB3678

Keywords: administrative procedures, rulemaking authority, specific authority, legislative review, agency rules, accounting, CPA, licensure, educational requirements, reciprocity, professional conduct, vital records, birth certificate, birth registration, biological sex, sex designation, male, female, nonbinary, gender identity

Bills: HB4319, HB4317, HB1225, HB3076, HB3081, HB4226, SCR17, HB4432, HB3304, HB3411, HB3435, HB4339, HB4331, HB4341, HB4342, HB1770, HB1016, HB4113, HB2950, HB4141, HB3277, HB2988, HB3029, HB3338, HB1889, HB3834, HB3831, HB2939, HB3045, HB3657, HB1739, HB3759, HB3755, HB4484, HB4486, HB4108, HB1250, HB2961, HB1219, HB3025, HB1782, HB1907, HB3718, HB4459, HB2976, HB3548, HB3545, HB2952, HB2929, HB2956, HB2973, HB3055, HB3086, HB3040, HB3794, HB4336, HB3151, HB1590, HB3581, HB3313, HB3429, HB3448, HB1752, HB2650, HB3584, HB4202, HB3586, HB4321, HB4280, HB3650, HCR1020, HB2116, HB2206, HB4301, HB3625, HB3147, HB3403, HB3498, HB3970, HB3975, HB3976, HB3980, HB4265, HB4266, HB3638, HB3880, HB3930, HB3942, HB3944, HB4191, HB3242, HB3678

Keywords: administrative procedures, rulemaking authority, specific authority, legislative review, agency rules, accounting, CPA, licensure, educational requirements, reciprocity, professional conduct, vital records, birth certificate, birth registration, biological sex, sex designation, male, female, nonbinary, gender identity

Transcript Highlights:

• For Section 32(c)(3), the end of the bill analysis incorrectly states its rule-making authority's delegate
• further consideration of Senate Bill 25 under Rule 4, Section 32(c)(3) on the grounds that the bill analysis

Bills: SB835, SB3070, SB22, SJR59, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB973, SB974, SB865, SB506, SB781, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB505, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB3073, SB2920, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB2460, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB2595, SB857, SB37, SB8, SB10, SB227, SB261, SB12, SB15, SJR27, SB552, SB835, SB3070, SB22, SJR59, SB25, SB57, SB127, SB293, SB441, SB3059, SB512, SB241, SB1718, SB140, SB2055, SB2075, SB2018, SB1534, SB1567, SB785, SB1233, SB1580, SB1663, SB413, SB447, SB519, SB467, SB1579, SB1191, SB1021, SB1838, SB2807, SB2835, SB546, SB2121, SB2167, SB2035, SB2024, SB1032, SB1049, SB1266, SB1400, SB1302, SB401, SB1596, SB1281, SB1242, SB1343, SB310, SB1346, SB2753, SB2703, SB2221, SB1719, SB2177, SB800, SB790, SB748, SB571, SB1957, SB1923, SB1896, SB1760, SB1335, SB2368, SB2477, SB2587, SB2972, SB2986, SB2965, SB1563, SB1467, SB1164, SB1137, SB614, SB705, SB961, SB918, SB955, SB869, SB850, SB863, SB1610, SB1055, SB2206, SB457, SB2337, SB1362, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB973, SB974, SB865, SB506, SB781, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB505, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB3073, SB2920, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB2460, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB2595, SB857, SCR9, HB5560, HB762, HB 107, HB 114, HB300, HB138, HB4386, HB2495, HB581, HB3348, HB5323

Keywords: sexual abuse, nondisclosure agreements, confidentiality agreements, public policy, victim rights, lottery, bingo, regulation, Texas Lottery Commission, Department of Licensing and Regulation, criminal offenses, state administration, audits, transfers, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation

Bills: HB3312, HB3700, HB2981, HB2961, HB3016, HB4478, HB4326, HB3025, HB3710, HB4125, HB2951, HB3082, HB4142, HB4106, HB1752, HB3268, HB4440, HJR1067, SB1144, SB1145, SB1146, SB1147, SB1148, SB1156, SB1157, SB1158, SB1159, SB1161, SB1162, SB1163, SB1164, SB1165, SB1166, SB1149, SB1167, HJR1024, SB1174, SB1175, SB1176, HB3419, HB3748, HB4335, HB3057, HB3279, HB4428, HB3420, HB3040, HB4140, HB1638, HB3298, HB4113, HB1082, HB4301, HB3269, HB3587, HB4226, HB4324, HB4339, HB4342, HB3278, HB3996, HB4236, HB4352

Keywords: firearm safety, public schools, education policy, student safety, gun control, opt-out option, grading system, student assessment, academic integrity, state funding, opinion conduct, open meetings, school boards, transparency, public access, education governance, HB2961, TSgt Marshal Dakota Roberts Gold Star Survivor Act, Gold Star family, Gold Star recipient

Bills: HB3312, HB3700, HB2981, HB2961, HB3016, HB4478, HB4326, HB3025, HB3710, HB4125, HB2951, HB3082, HB4142, HB4106, HB1752, HB3268, HB4440, HJR1067, SB1144, SB1145, SB1146, SB1147, SB1148, SB1156, SB1157, SB1158, SB1159, SB1161, SB1162, SB1163, SB1164, SB1165, SB1166, SB1149, SB1167, HJR1024, SB1174, SB1175, SB1176, HB3419, HB3748, HB4335, HB3057, HB3279, HB4428, HB3420, HB3040, HB4140, HB1638, HB3298, HB4113, HB1082, HB4301, HB3269, HB3587, HB4226, HB4324, HB4339, HB4342, HB3278, HB3996, HB4236, HB4352

Keywords: firearm safety, public schools, education policy, student safety, gun control, opt-out option, grading system, student assessment, academic integrity, state funding, opinion conduct, open meetings, school boards, transparency, public access, education governance, HB2961, TSgt Marshal Dakota Roberts Gold Star Survivor Act, Gold Star family, Gold Star recipient

Bills: HR207, SB2595, SB3199, SB3132, SB2591, SB2089, SB2108, SB2970, SB2530, SB2442, SB3076, SB2532, SB2721, SB2055, SB2312, SB2152, SB2438, SB2982, SB2528, SB2919, SB2446, SB2315, SB2544, SB2060, SB2069, SB3011, SB2342, SB2075, SB2578, SB2580, SB2835, SB3084, SB3322, SB3053, SB888, SB709

Keywords: Dr. David Lassner, higher education, community engagement, university leadership, innovation, Hawaii education system, agribusiness, leasing, agriculture, Hawaii, food innovation, Department of Education, mental health, emerging therapies, psychedelic treatment, task force, clinical trials, trauma recovery, MDMA, psilocybin

Bills: HR207, SB2595, SB3199, SB3132, SB2591, SB2089, SB2108, SB2970, SB2530, SB2442, SB3076, SB2532, SB2721, SB2055, SB2312, SB2152, SB2438, SB2982, SB2528, SB2919, SB2446, SB2315, SB2544, SB2060, SB2069, SB3011, SB2342, SB2075, SB2578, SB2580, SB2835, SB3084, SB3322, SB3053, SB888, SB709

Keywords: Dr. David Lassner, higher education, community engagement, university leadership, innovation, Hawaii education system, agribusiness, leasing, agriculture, Hawaii, food innovation, Department of Education, mental health, emerging therapies, psychedelic treatment, task force, clinical trials, trauma recovery, MDMA, psilocybin

Bills: SJR60, SJR62, SJR65, SJR66, SJR67, SJR68, SCR27, SCR28, SCR29, SB1576, SB1577, SB1578, SB1579, SB1580, SB1581, SB1582, SB1583, SB1584, SB1585, SB1586, SB1587, SB1588, SB1589, SB1590, SB1591, SB1592, SB1593, SB1594, SB1595, SB1596, SB1597, SB1598, SB1599, SB1600, SB1601, SB1602, SB1603, SB1604, SB1605, SB1606, SB1607, SB1608, SB1609, SB1610, SB1611, SB1612, SB1613, SB1614, SB1615, SB1616, SB1618, SB1619, SB1620, SB1622, SB1623, SB1624, SB1625, SJR60, SJR62, SJR65, SJR66, SJR67, SJR68, SCR27, SCR28, SCR29, SB1576, SB1577, SB1578, SB1579, SB1580, SB1581, SB1582, SB1583, SB1584, SB1585, SB1586, SB1587, SB1588, SB1589, SB1590, SB1591, SB1592, SB1593, SB1594, SB1595, SB1596, SB1597, SB1598, SB1599, SB1600, SB1601, SB1602, SB1603, SB1604, SB1605, SB1606, SB1607, SB1608, SB1609, SB1610, SB1611, SB1612, SB1613, SB1614, SB1615, SB1616, SB1618, SB1619, SB1620, SB1622, SB1623, SB1624, SB1625

Keywords: SJR 60, Texas constitutional amendment, property tax exemption, ad valorem taxation, rainwater harvesting, graywater system, water conservation, water reuse, residential tax incentive, local government finance, county commissioners court, appraisal value, environmental incentive, November 2025 ballot, Article VIII, tax relief, healthcare workforce, education funding, higher education, economic growth

Transcript Highlights:

• So the reason we're here is to do the analysis.
• Right after that is the JLBC fiscal analysis.
• The analysis is adopted. Okay. The analysis is adopted. Are there amendments?
• The analysis for SCR 1032.
• We'll go on to the analysis for HCR 2044.

Summary: The committee met to review and adopt Legislative Council ballot measure analyses, with members repeatedly reminded that the hearing was limited to the accuracy, clarity, and impartiality of the summaries and not the merits of the underlying proposals. Steve Premack explained the statutory role of the analyses in the publicity pamphlet, and staff presented draft language for several measures. The committee considered and voted on multiple amendments, often debating whether proposed wording was clearer or instead crossed into advocacy or added unnecessary legal detail. For SCR 1004, members debated amendments to more closely mirror the measure’s text and to add language about electric vehicles and mileage, but several proposed changes were rejected. The analysis was ultimately adopted by an 8-6 roll call. HCR 2021 was then adopted without amendment by the same 8-6 margin. For HCR 2055, members debated whether the summary should say the Department of Homeland Security must “do everything” or “use all lawful means available,” and whether to add language about cartels acting “individually or collectively”; both amendments were rejected and the analysis was adopted 8-6. The committee next took up SCR 1004 on photo enforcement systems, where members proposed amendments to clarify that the measure would apply to red light cameras, to add “thereafter” regarding recurring voter approval, and to specify that approval would occur at the general election; those amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. On SCR 1032, dealing with instructional expenses and classroom site fund reductions, members debated adding a definition of the Classroom Site Fund and spelling out the waiver process in more detail; both amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. Finally, on HCR 2001 regarding citizenship identification and early voting, members rejected amendments that would have added background on current law, clarified that mail voting would be affected, added severability and revenue-source language, and struck the measure’s short title; the discussion was lengthy and at times contentious, but the transcript ends before a final roll-call vote on that measure is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• The analysis is adopted. Okay.” “The analysis is adopted. Are there amendments?
• Paragraph 7 of the proposed analysis quotes, Paragraph seven of the proposed analysis quotes nearly verbatim
• He's talking about the analysis, line 15.
• We'll go on to the analysis for HCR 2044.
• Yes, I move the amendment of the draft analysis for HCR 2048 as—” “...the draft analysis for HCR 2048

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:00:59.440> of looking at the costbenefit analysis of looking at the costbenefit analysis
• created the major costbenefit analysis created the major costbenefit analysis requirement<00:03:
• He said it gives the cart blanche that if an analysis comes out cost-benefit negative, or if the analysis
• analysis analysis um<00:18:46.720> that<00:18:47.280> uh<00:18:47.440> that<00:
• The costbenefit analysis want that.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 936, an author’s bill requiring cost-benefit analysis before agencies move forward with major rulemaking. Chair Nash moved the bill, the A2 author’s amendment was adopted, and the bill was then discussed as amended. The sponsor said the goal was not to eliminate rulemaking, but to require agencies to “show their work” by analyzing costs, benefits, and assumptions before rules are adopted. Supporters, including representatives from Americans for Prosperity and the Pacific Legal Foundation, argued the bill would improve transparency, uniformity, and accountability in rulemaking. They cited federal and other state models, especially Virginia, and said similar requirements already exist in several states. They also pointed to public support for requiring cost-benefit analysis and said the bill could help agencies avoid costly or poorly thought-out regulations, reduce litigation risk, and improve legislative oversight through notice to committees and publication of preliminary and final analyses. Several members raised concerns. Representative Luger Nikolai said cost-benefit analysis is already part of existing law through SONARs and that the legislature, not agencies, should be the first line of review; she also worried the bill would force dollar valuations on qualitative factors such as accessibility. Representative Craft said the bill could allow unelected officials to negate policy choices already made by the legislature if benefits do not exceed costs. Representative Fryberg said the bill appears to require full analysis even for minor housekeeping rules and may overemphasize dollar-based benefits. Chair Nash and supporters responded that the bill is meant to impose a uniform check on agencies and that many current rules already operate without sufficient legislative oversight. The discussion ended with members expressing both support and opposition, and a roll call was requested, though no final vote was included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• declined to to have that, um, analysis declined to to have that, um, analysis done.<00:12:46.160
• Um but there this type of analysis.
• <00:20:13.360> Um to conduct this type of analysis. Um to conduct this type of analysis.
• accuracy I think of dynamic analysis. accuracy I think of dynamic analysis.
• um want to use this type of analysis um want to use this type of analysis for?

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Office Oversight Commission met on January 22, 2026, with a quorum present and approved the minutes from the December 17, 2025 meeting. The main presentation was by Erikica McKeler of the National Conference of State Legislatures on dynamic fiscal notes, dynamic scoring, and how they differ from static fiscal notes. She explained that dynamic analysis tries to capture broader economic and behavioral effects of policy changes, but that most states have experimented with it only briefly, often for tax bills, and many have later scaled back or abandoned the practice because it is staff-intensive, expensive, and difficult to validate. McKeler highlighted examples from Texas, Utah, and Arkansas. Texas requires dynamic fiscal impact statements for certain large tax or fee measures and for the biennial appropriations bill; Utah has done such analyses on request during the interim but only when staff time allows; and Arkansas recently began producing dynamic fiscal notes with thresholds and request limits. She noted that these states generally use REMI software, though Utah switched to IMPLAN for cost reasons. She also outlined common challenges, including the need for strong staff expertise, the sensitivity of results to assumptions, the expense of software licenses, and the difficulty of measuring accuracy over time. Members then discussed whether dynamic scoring could be useful for health and human services programs where a policy may shift costs between settings rather than create a simple new expense. Senator Marty raised a Medicaid example involving home-based blue light therapy for newborns, arguing that dynamic analysis might better capture potential savings from avoiding longer hospital stays. Legislative Budget Office and Minnesota Management and Budget staff responded that such effects may be better understood as direct program substitutions rather than true dynamic effects, and emphasized the need for reliable data and caution because savings estimates could reduce appropriations if they do not materialize. The discussion also touched on whether dynamic models would capture local government impacts, but no formal action was taken beyond the approval of minutes and receipt of the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we'll provide some analysis.
• accomplished in this type of analysis? accomplished in this type of analysis?
• Our analysis included a table looking at the FTE variance, and then it had some analysis of what were
• we were to move forward with such analysis or if the commission would consider this type of analysis
• There's really uh a few analysis.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Caucus Public Commission met with a quorum present, approved the September 3, 2025 minutes, and then heard a presentation from Legislative Budget Office Director Christian Larson on proposed updates to the fiscal note uniform standards and procedures. The main changes clarified that agencies must still complete a fiscal note when a bill or section cannot be implemented because of federal law, with the note explaining the implementation issue and costing only the portions that can be implemented. A second change said technical comments about possible future litigation may be included in the narrative but not in the cost tables. Members discussed how these rules would apply when only part of a bill is unimplementable versus when an entire bill is, and whether requiring a note in those cases is the best use of agency time. The commission also approved a new procedure on funding-source assumptions for expanded programs, including assuming the current funding source unless the bill says otherwise and defaulting to the general fund if no source is identified. The updated standards and procedures were adopted by a 7-0 roll call vote, with Senator Wickland excused. The commission then received a second presentation from Director Larson on a possible analysis of the accuracy of fiscal estimates and budget items after enactment. He described this as a variance analysis comparing fiscal note estimates to actual fiscal impacts, intended to improve future estimates, inform the legislature, and increase accountability. He summarized practices in other states, noting that most variance reviews are ad hoc, while Utah and Tennessee have more formalized legislative reports; he also referenced an LBO pilot review done in 2022 based largely on Tennessee’s model. The presentation outlined possible report formats, including a single annual report, standalone briefs, or topic-specific reviews, and raised implementation questions such as who would select items for review, whether the analysis should be limited to fiscal notes, what statutory authority or data access would be needed, and what resources would be required from both agencies and the LBO. Members did not take action on the second presentation. Representative Anderson and Vice Chair Pratt commented that the proposal is complicated but potentially useful for improving future fiscal notes and transparency, and the chair indicated the discussion was for future consideration rather than an immediate decision.