Transcript Highlights:

• That's an unfair advantage, and there's a safety factor.
• </c><00:38:56.240><c> So</c> safety factor is already built in.
• So safety factor is already built in.
• That's the safety factor, whether it's five or 10%.
• ><c> whether</c><00:58:20.720><c> it's</c> That's the safety factor, whether it's That's the safety factor

Committee: House Public Works and Highways

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 497, a technical correction to last year’s capital budget. Shannon Reid of the Community College System of New Hampshire explained that the bill removes leftover state-agency boilerplate from a repurposed capital appropriation and replaces it with community college language, without changing any dollar amounts. She also described a requested amendment to rename a respiratory therapy renovation appropriation at Nashua Community College as an allied health instructional center, so the space can be used more flexibly for programs such as phlebotomy, radiologic technology, and LNA training. Terry Poff of the General Court then testified on the second part of the bill, which changes legislative space references to support the move of General Court offices from the second floor to the fourth floor of the annex as part of the legislative office building reconfiguration. Members asked whether the community college changes affected funding, and Reid confirmed the amounts do not change and that the bill simply speeds up a correction that otherwise would have been handled later in the lapse process. Poff said the annex space change is part of a permanent transition, though the work cannot proceed until the General Court has legal control of the space. The committee then entered executive session, adopted Amendment 1031H on a 12-0 vote, and voted ought to pass as amended on SB 497 by a 12-0 vote, with several members absent. The bill was placed on the consent calendar. The committee next opened a hearing on Senate Bill 529FN, which would give preference to lumber sourced in the United States on state-funded building projects. Representative Davis, introducing the bill for Senator Roachford, argued that New Hampshire timber is disadvantaged by grading rules that treat U.S. lumber differently from Canadian SPF lumber, even when the wood is from similar species and climates. He said the bill is intended to support New Hampshire’s timber industry and that architects and engineers would still be able to specify stronger materials when needed. Committee members questioned whether the bill should instead refer specifically to New Hampshire lumber, how it would be enforced, and what the cost impact would be. Davis and later witness Mike Olette said the issue is tied to industry grading standards rather than a government code, that the bill is meant to create a preference rather than a mandate, and that price differences are hard to pin down because lumber is a commodity. Olette, who lives near the border, testified that New Hampshire logs are often sent to Canada for milling and then return under a different grade, which he said puts New Hampshire loggers and mills at an economic disadvantage.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:13:42.480><c> of</c> balance and weigh all of the factors of balance and weigh all of the factors
• The judge is going to balance and weigh those things using those factors if that youth reoffends.
• </c><00:34:09.679><c> But</c><00:34:09.839><c> 87%</c> factors if that youth reaffends.
• But 87% factors if that youth reaffends. But 87% don't. don't. don't.
• But when it does happen, the judge will have an opportunity to consider those factors, the fact that

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, it has to do a lot with the risk factors that can be in any given ZIP code or territory, as you
• subsidization of the risk that's still going on, but that's why, you know, we find that the more rating factors
• But we don't have a lot of those other rating factors at our disposal in Massachusetts that would allow
• Most states in the country do allow for credit-based insurance scoring as a factor.
• It faces similar criticisms to other rating factors.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services held a public hearing on a wide range of auto insurance and vehicle-related bills. Testimony focused heavily on autonomous vehicle regulation, auto insurance rating by ZIP code, rental car liability coverage, and surcharge thresholds for minor accidents. Representative Polito supported a bill to regulate autonomous vehicle testing and deployment, arguing for school-zone restrictions, slower speeds, a remote kill switch, and minimum insurance requirements to protect the public. Representative Mendez and Senator Payano testified for legislation to reduce racial and socioeconomic inequities in auto insurance pricing by limiting the weight insurers may place on territorial loss costs, while the Mass Insurance Federation and Consumer Federation of America offered opposing and supporting views, respectively, on the fairness and actuarial impact of geographic rating. The committee also heard support for a bill to remove inspection-sticker violations from license-point calculations, and for a bill to raise the damage threshold for insurance surcharges and minor/major accident classifications. A substantial portion of the hearing addressed House Bill 1301 on rental car liability. Enterprise Mobility, the American Car Rental Association, and a small Massachusetts rental company supported the bill, saying personal auto insurers should be primary when their insureds drive rental cars, that Massachusetts is an outlier compared with most other states, and that the change would reduce costs and simplify claims handling. The Mass Insurance Federation opposed the bill, arguing that current Massachusetts law already clearly makes the vehicle owner’s policy primary and that shifting liability would raise costs for private-passenger policyholders. Committee members asked detailed questions about how rental coverage works, whether premiums or rental rates would change, and how other states handle the issue. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to adjust surcharge rules for at-fault accidents, with sponsors arguing that repair costs and vehicle values have risen sharply and that the current thresholds are outdated. Members discussed how the point system affects drivers, whether the proposal should apply cumulatively or per incident, and how Carfax and out-of-pocket repairs factor into consumer costs. At the end of the hearing, the chair noted written testimony could still be submitted and, during a brief personal privilege, recorded support for two underinsurance bills, H. 1109 and S. 748. The committee then moved and seconded a motion to adjourn, and the hearing ended without any votes on the bills themselves.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's an important factor for us.
• So that's, I think, an important factor for us.
• Bodies, that's a huge contributing factor to how we look at that, too.
• aren't typically included sort of in the same way in budget projections, it is another important factor
• for helping to reduce our structural... ...way in budget projections, it is another important factor

Summary: The joint Sunset Review Oversight Hearing focused on the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) and its reauthorization, operations, enforcement, fiscal condition, and student protections. Committee leaders and DCA officials praised the Bureau’s recent improvements in data systems, licensing, inspections, and enforcement, while noting the Bureau’s role has become more important as federal higher education oversight weakens. Bureau Chief Deborah Cochran said the agency has met its inspection mandate for the first time since the law was enacted, increased citations and disciplinary actions, reduced pending complaints, and used data tools to identify risk and monitor institutions more effectively. A major portion of the hearing centered on student harm, especially school closures, transcript access, predatory recruiting, and the Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF). Members asked how the Bureau protects students when schools close, whether bad actors can reopen under new entities, and whether enforcement tools are strong enough. Cochran said the Bureau can cite, fine, place schools on probation, revoke licenses, and order refunds, but it is seeking new authority to deny approval to operators who previously closed schools improperly or failed to refund students. She also said the Bureau is tracking ownership data and is concerned about institutions targeting immigrant and visa students. On STRF, Cochran explained that the fund is currently healthy, assessments are at zero because the balance is above the statutory target, and the Bureau paid about 1,100 claims totaling roughly $17 million over the last four years. Several members questioned the fairness of the assessment structure and discussed alternatives such as surety bonds, but the Bureau said STRF is working well and no change is needed at this time. Fee increases and the Bureau’s structural deficit were another major topic. Cochran said the Bureau reduced costs by eliminating positions, streamlining inspections, improving data analysis, and shifting some student-relief costs to STRF, but that legislative action is still needed to address the deficit. She said the proposed fees were based on workload analyses and that application fees generally match service costs, while annual fees are designed to cover most of the Bureau’s revenue needs. Some members and stakeholders criticized the proposed increases as too high, especially for out-of-state registration and campus fees, while others argued the Bureau needs sufficient resources to regulate effectively. Public commenters from private schools, Northeastern University, San Joaquin Valley College/Carrington College, and TICAS generally supported the Bureau’s mission and reauthorization, but urged changes such as risk-based oversight, better transcript protections, stronger limits on repeated provisional approvals, and more targeted fee and STRF reforms. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with no formal action beyond discussion and receipt of testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• To analyze what factors influence drivers when it comes to installing an ignition interlock device, we
• influence an outcome while holding other factors constant.
• There are other factors that likely influence the installation rate.
• Now, for various data reasons and methodological reasons, it was impossible to include these factors
• I would say there are many factors that go into it.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee met on January 7, 2026, approved the December minutes, and adopted an amended work plan. Staff proposed moving the drug take-back program sunset review up to 2026 and delaying the thermal energy network pilot review to 2028, which would free capacity for new studies. Members also discussed active bills that would eliminate two recurring JLARC reports, including one on lodging tax revenue data collection, and the committee adopted the work plan without objection. JLARC staff then outlined new performance measures for the committee itself, covering effectiveness, efficiency, and quality. The measures include member and legislative satisfaction surveys, presentations to other committees, recommendation follow-up, staff retention, on-time report delivery, peer review results, and national recognition. Members praised the effort and did not take formal action, treating the measures as an ongoing process. The committee also heard a proposal to improve JLARC’s review of tax preference performance statements by adding a standard rubric in fiscal notes to assess whether a metric matches the policy objective, is measurable, uses reliable data, and allows enough time for evaluation. Members supported the pilot approach. Staff also described planned changes to public records reporting guidance, including opt-outs for low-volume metrics, better validation, targeted outreach to nonreporting agencies, and a survey of records officers. Two preliminary reports were presented. On ignition interlock devices, JLARC found that only 41% of drivers with a requirement had installed a device, with installation rates rising sharply with income; financial assistance reaches only about 11% of users, and JLARC recommended clearer program goals and stronger coordination between the Department of Licensing and State Patrol. On the drug take-back program, JLARC found that the fee structure tied to operator expenditures limits the Department of Health’s ability to recover oversight costs and recommended public reporting of oversight spending and a statutory change to better align fees with actual costs. Agency representatives generally agreed with the findings, described current coordination and administrative changes, and said they would consider the recommendations. No formal votes were taken on the reports, which will return in final form later in the year.

Transcript Highlights:

• Factor in the business decision making process to come to California or stay here and put Californians
• evaluation criteria for CalCompetes is ensuring that this credit or grant will truly be a material factor
• with your CEO, your CFO, your board of directors, whoever's making the decision, what are all the factors
• We know that costs, of course, are a driving factor, but where do your raw materials come from?
• It is an essential factor for that decision was the 25 million.

Transcript Highlights:

• There could be several factors that go... ...of these disputes be legislated?
• There could be several factors that go into that.
• You know, in terms of a price forecast, so to speak, I mean, I want to factor in certainly supply and
• demand, but I also want to factor in, you know, any economic...
• I'm an engineer, but certainly there are a number of factors.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Summary: The Transportation Committee heard and acted on a series of transportation, licensing, and memorial bills. The first major item was CS/SB 462, the Department of Transportation agency package, which included provisions on transportation trust fund revenue for electric vehicles, county project reporting, speed limits, workforce grants, procurement and utility relocation procedures, airport participation, metropolitan planning, and related DOT administration. The committee adopted a substitute amendment after extensive discussion, especially over utility relocation reimbursement, penalties, and whether the bill was too rigid while stakeholders continued negotiating. Testimony came from industry and utility representatives both supporting the need to address delays and opposing the bill’s prescriptive approach. The bill passed 8-3. The committee then approved several specialty license plate and memorial measures. CS/SB 1024 added a United States Military Academy plate alongside the Naval Academy plate. CS/SB 824 created a Florida Highway Patrol specialty plate. CS/SB 666 created a Miami Northwestern Senior High School alumni plate, with supporters emphasizing the school’s history and scholarship uses for the revenue. CS/SB 916 authorized indemnification and insurance arrangements for commuter rail operations on the Brightline corridor, modeled on SunRail law, and was reported favorably after technical amendments. CS/SB 1290 updated DHSMV rules to conform to IFTA and federal motor carrier standards, raised the crash-damage reporting threshold, and made other registration and email-notification changes; CS/SB 1292 created a public-records exemption for certain email addresses used in motor vehicle and vessel notifications. CS/SB 1408 designated memorial highways for fallen officers Jesse Madsen and Elio Diaz, and CS/SB 1502 authorized FDOT blanket permits for mobile cranes to travel at night under specified conditions. All of these bills were reported favorably. The committee also received a lengthy informational presentation from FDOT on aggregates and the state’s construction-material supply chain. The witness described aggregate sources, transportation methods, recycling efforts, the importance of the Lake Belt and out-of-state imports, and the department’s supply-chain grant program. Senators asked about long-term reserves, stranded reserves, pricing, and the impact of regulation on future supply, and requested the study and a summary of regulatory impacts for members. The meeting concluded with no further business and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The teacher in the classroom is the single most important. school factor impacting student outcomes.
• We think there are largely four factors that are driving that difference.
• Discipline is a key factor in whether teachers.
• Which my understanding of that is 21% has been the inflationary factor from then to now.
• impacting public education. end quote, as these factors are not defined.

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• And this year we really focus on obesity and what are some of the factors and programs that influence
• And this year we really focus on obesity and what are some of the factors and programs that influence
• </c><01:31:59.440><c> and</c> and what are some of the factors and and what are some of the factors and
• Um and there's a lot of factors obese.
• 32:22.960><c> are</c><01:32:23.920><c> um,</c> know that these factors are um, know that these factors

Summary: The committee approved the October 22, 2025 minutes and then heard a presentation from the Child Fatality and Near Fatality External Review Panel on accidental ingestion of illegal drug products by children. Panel members said pediatric ingestions have become the most common case type they review, with the highest-risk children ages one to four, and that fatal cases have increased in recent years. They reported that the substances most often involved are fentanyl, cannabinoids including THC products, methamphetamine, and increasingly xylazine; they also noted a decline in buprenorphine-related ingestions, which they viewed as a positive trend. The panel used several case examples to highlight recurring problems in investigations and medical response, including delayed DCBS involvement, failure to administer Narcan, inadequate drug testing, lack of child abuse team involvement, and limited or absent law enforcement investigation. They said law enforcement issues are especially common in pediatric ingestion cases and are concentrated in Jefferson County and the Bluegrass/KIPA regions. One example involved a one-year-old who died from fentanyl and Benadryl intoxication; another involved a two-year-old who died after ingesting multiple substances; and a third involved a four-year-old with near-fatal THC gummy ingestion where delayed treatment worsened the child’s condition. They also described a 10-month-old THC ingestion case that resulted in a criminal abuse conviction, which they presented as an example without missed investigative opportunities. Committee members discussed possible policy responses, including creating a more specific criminal child abuse offense or clarifying existing abuse and neglect definitions to cover unsafe access to illegal drugs, while preserving room for true accidents and prescribed medications. Members also raised the need for statewide standardization in reporting, investigation, and medical response, and suggested the panel should be able to call in agencies such as law enforcement, DCBS, judges, and hospitals for closed-session review of selected cases. The panel chair said they were already pursuing meetings with LMPD and would provide Jefferson County-specific breakdowns, and members expressed interest in additional data and agency follow-up before considering legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• depopulation, As far as options for future depopulation, this slide highlights how there are many factors
• There are other factors that impact the success of depopulation.
• because the incentives for the brokers to remove somebody out of the Fair Plan, there's a lot of factors
• Of the Fair Plan, there's a lot of factors that they need to take into consideration in doing that.
• So there's a lot of these other factors.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held its first outcomes review oversight hearing on the residential fair plan clearinghouse program created by AB 3012. Chair and members focused on whether the program is actually helping depopulate the California Fair Plan and move policyholders back to the voluntary market. The Fair Plan and Department of Insurance testified that the program exists as a platform for admitted and, in some cases, non-admitted insurers to review Fair Plan policies and make offers through the broker of record, but they acknowledged limited participation and limited results. CDI said it has received no formal complaints specific to the clearinghouse, but identified obstacles including only 11 participating residential insurers, the broker-of-record requirement, compensation and appointment issues, and the lack of direct consumer contact. CDI said about 730 residential risks have moved to voluntary market coverage through the program from June 2021 through April 30, 2025, and opt-outs are under 1%. Committee members pressed witnesses on the program’s opacity, the lack of data on offers made versus policies actually moved, and whether the clearinghouse is functioning as intended. CDI and the Fair Plan said they do not have data on how many offers have been made, only on cancellations that are self-reported and marked as clearinghouse-related. Members also raised regional growth in Fair Plan enrollment, especially on the Central Coast, and concerns about underinsurance when policyholders move back to the regular market. CDI recommended more mandatory reporting, broader broker education, possible direct offers to policyholders after a period of time, and changes to commission and appointment rules to reduce barriers to insurer participation. The second panel of industry witnesses generally agreed the clearinghouse is not a stand-alone solution and said its effectiveness depends on a healthier admitted market and actuarially sound Fair Plan rates. Independent agents and brokers, admitted-market insurers, and surplus lines representatives said the current system is constrained by low rate adequacy, limited insurer appetite for high-risk properties, operational friction, and misaligned incentives. Several witnesses suggested improvements such as better data sharing, clearer depopulation procedures, stronger broker education, and more flexible appointment or compensation rules. Some supported giving the program more time under the Sustainable Insurance Strategy, while others said the Legislature should consider whether to strengthen, modify, or potentially sunset the program if it continues to produce limited results. A public witness later reported that a new carrier had recently joined the clearinghouse and was working with brokers to bring in additional capacity.

Transcript Highlights:

• How are you factoring that into kind of your discussions about these bills and is that a concern?
• How are you factoring that into kind of your discussions about these bills and is that a concern?
• How are you factoring that into kind of your discussions about these bills and is that a concern?
• How are you factoring that into kind of your discussions about these bills and is that a concern?
• you</c><00:15:36.720><c> between</c> distinguishing factor for you between distinguishing factor for

Summary: Senators Erin Maye Quade, Eric Lucero, Liz Boldon, and Chair Ron Latz discussed a package of bipartisan bills aimed at regulating artificial intelligence and related technology in Minnesota. The speakers argued that AI can be beneficial but has been rolled out without adequate safeguards, citing concerns about consumer surveillance, insurance claim denials, dynamic pricing, chatbot harms to children, and the use of AI in healthcare utilization review. Maye Quade and Boldon emphasized protecting kids, consumers, and constitutional rights, while Lucero framed the issue as keeping law aligned with rapidly changing technology and protecting individual liberties. A major focus was the “reverse warrant” bill, which would restrict law enforcement from using warrants that start with an unknown suspect and sweep up data from everyone in a location or search terms in a broad area. The senators said such warrants are the opposite of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement, though they noted ongoing conversations with the BCA and police chiefs about balancing privacy and public safety. They also discussed a bill to prohibit minors from accessing chatbots, describing chatbots as conversational, addictive, and uniquely harmful to developing brains; Maye Quade cited examples of self-harm, sexual content, and dangerous advice allegedly given to minors. The senators said the package was intentionally heard in Judiciary first so it could be referred to Commerce, and they expressed hope for further hearings there and in the House. Lucero said he did not support all the bills, naming the dynamic pricing bill and the AI utilization review prohibition as measures he had reservations about, while supporting the reverse warrant, disclosure, and minor-access restrictions. The discussion also touched on federal preemption concerns, with the senators saying states are stepping in because federal action has lagged and the harms cross party lines. No formal votes or committee actions were described in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Courts may consider factors such as repeated copy-and-paste filings, lack of pre-suit notice, bad-faith
• Factors one through, or A through G, right?
• It seems to me that these are the factors to consider whether or not it is abusive. Thank you.
• I think the factors are enough. I agree. I think this is a great starting point.
• At this point, I think that the point of the factors is to give the judge some ability to...

Committee: House General Laws

Transcript Highlights:

• embedded in a CPI, not embedded into some kind of wage growth or, for example, a regional growth factor
• Just like if I'm adjusting for a CPI or a wage growth or some type of regional housing factor, we want
• to see an acuity factor that's being applied.
• Just like if I'm adjusting for a CPI or a wage growth or some type of regional housing factor, we want
• to see an acute growth or some type of regional housing factor we want to see an acuity factor that's

Committee: Senate Children, Families, and Elder Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• tends to be around that 12 and a half percent range, but it's calculated on a long list of various factors
• We looked at several other factors and we made recommendations that other factors be considered in this
• So to speak, we looked at several other factors and we made recommendations that other factors be considered
• So our recommendation is to consider some of these other factors in that calculation, as well as consider
• So our recommendation is to consider some of these other factors in that calculation, as well as consider

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

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition to the state's structural imbalance, factors outside Minnesota's borders are also impacting
• The trouble is there's so many outside factors that we can't address, largely federal.
• We're trying to do that and finish the session in May. outside factors that we can't address outside
• factors that we can't address largely<00:03:45.480><c> Federal</c><00:03:46.480><c> Senator</c><00:03
• So how do you factor that in? It's about being reasonable in what you're proposing.

Transcript Highlights:

• One factor is demographics.
• The second factor is unemployment rates.
• A final factor is looking across higher education.
• And all of that factored into the decision. Thank you for that context.
• Due to some eligibility factors, we're seeing some savings from this program.

Transcript Highlights:

• Propane offers reliability by being independent of external factors.
• </c><00:04:53.280><c> Minnesota</c><00:04:53.840><c> residents</c> external factors.
• Minnesota residents external factors.
• And, uh, given the factors as far as our energy scarcity as right now, that we're looking at making sure
• I think you have the best free factors.

Committee: House Housing Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• To just piggyback on that point and bring all of this together, one of the things that's a factor as
• That is a factor for us as well. We are in Orlando.
• That is a factor for us as well. We are in Orlando. No. versus rural.
• That is a factor for us as well.
• But if there's something that could be a factor, a weighting factor, maybe that's a way to do it.

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Higher Education

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on higher education funding, focusing on how Florida’s university system should be financed and whether a new funding model is needed. University system financial officers and Chancellor Ray Rodriguez discussed major cost drivers, including wages and benefits, utilities, maintenance, financial aid, research, and the effects of geography, institutional mission, and student mix. UF highlighted the cost of research and graduate programs; UCF and FAU pointed to growth, location, and cost of living; FAMU emphasized recruiting top-tier talent while relying on other revenue sources; and UNF noted the challenges of growth and long-term planning. Members also discussed the role of internal controls and audits in addressing excessive spending and questioned whether out-of-state tuition should be adjusted to help offset costs. On revenue sources beyond state appropriations and tuition, the panel described auxiliaries, restricted funds, capital projects, and component units such as foundations and health systems. Several universities noted that some revenues are restricted to specific purposes and cannot be used for general operations. FAMU explained that a large share of its capital project funding reflected active campus construction, while UF said its component-unit revenue is largely tied to UF Health. The Chancellor emphasized that the system’s low tuition and strong state support are central to Florida’s national standing, but also noted that some auxiliary revenues are pledged to debt and must be managed carefully. When discussing the current funding process, witnesses praised Florida’s performance-based funding model for aligning incentives with student success, transparency, and accountability. They also raised concerns about non-recurring appropriations, rising employee benefit costs, unfunded mandates, deferred maintenance, and the difficulty of multi-year planning. Suggestions for improvement included more recurring funding, better coverage of mandated costs, greater flexibility in fee-setting, and possible weighting for mission, geography, and institutional type. The Chancellor said the Board of Governors is considering a “version 3.0” of performance-based funding that would benchmark institutions against peers and Carnegie classifications, but any changes would require legislative action. On out-of-state tuition, most universities said they would prefer local board flexibility, while the Chancellor cautioned that increasing out-of-state enrollment or fees could affect future state support and should be balanced carefully.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, it's not the only determining factor. They also have to consider the factors in 43-1-525.
• But I'm going to skip to the good stuff. the only determining factor.
• They also the only determining factor.
• and not the concern of risk factors.
• and not the concern of risk factors.

Transcript Highlights:

• And one of the factors that you before.
• And one of the factors that you know<00:36:58.320><c> was</c><00:36:58.480><c> being</c><00:36:58.720
• or we should expect it to be less of a factor. >> That's absolutely correct.
• or we should expect it to be less of a factor. >> That's absolutely correct.
• of of what their costs this as a factor of of what their costs are.