Transcript Highlights:

• We collect over 125 fees.
• fees on this list.
• However, it didn't make this fee report because we weren't charging the fee yet.
• The fee on the blackout plate is an additional $25 on top of the registration fee.
• One is for data processing fees. The other is for telecommunication fees.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• collection and this has been allocated collection and this has been allocated partially<00:18:17.640
• <00:20:27.919> to<00:20:28.080> transportation allocated to transportation allocated to
• of flexibility on how this is allocated of flexibility on how this is allocated and<00:26:34.399
• uh does a fair amount towards allocating uh does a fair amount towards allocating use<00:48:21.280
• That's a largely fee-based structure of finance there.

Keywords: 1183, house

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

Transcript Highlights:

• We also allocated about $400,000 towards the design for the railing at the Rio Grande Gorge Bridge.
• , so that will go for the construction and be supplemented with the previous allocation.
• So this we have several projects on this allocation that have been completed.
• We're going to be paying the increased fee for the registration fee.
• And there are funding sources, fee sources, for retiring the debt on the bonds.

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The committee heard a District 5 New Mexico Department of Transportation presentation from Rhonda Lopez, who reviewed the district’s FY26 budget, staffing vacancies, and the status of special appropriations from 2020 through 2025. She described numerous completed and ongoing projects across the district, including roadway overlays, bridge work, intersection improvements, ADA upgrades, and maintenance projects, and also summarized STIP, TPF, LGRF, and equipment needs. Members asked about a guardrail issue near U.S. 64 in Hogback, the 5% local match for TPF projects, and the status of the New Mexico 371/U.S. 36 intersection funding agreement with the Navajo Nation; DOT said the match is secured or waived where applicable and that the Navajo agreement is nearly finalized. The committee then heard House Bill 270, which would amend the Public Works Apprentice Training Act to require contributions to apprenticeship and training programs for certain public works contracts, including highway-related work, while creating an exception where no approved apprenticeship program exists for a trade classification. The sponsor said the bill was intended to strengthen workforce development and support apprenticeship training. Contractors and asphalt industry representatives opposed the bill, arguing it would raise road project costs and duplicate existing training contributions. A motion to table failed on a tie, and a later motion to pass also failed on a tie, leaving the bill in committee. Next, the committee heard House Bill 322, which would create a transportation trust fund and transportation program fund, dedicate additional revenue sources including a portion of electricity GRT and motor vehicle excise tax, and begin annual distributions for federal matching funds in 2029. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would help address a multi-billion-dollar road funding gap, improve maintenance, and provide a stable source for matching federal dollars. Some members raised concerns about the electricity tax component, its effect on utility bills, and overlap with recently enacted transportation financing measures; others supported the concept but questioned timing and funding priorities. A motion on the bill resulted in a tie and failed, leaving the bill in committee. The meeting concluded with a District 4 NMDOT legislative presentation. The district outlined its geography, budget, staffing vacancy rate, completed special appropriations, active construction and maintenance projects, wildfire-related recovery work, local government funding allocations, and equipment replacement needs. Members asked about school district uses of local funding and the impact of aging equipment and weather on maintenance costs. The presentation ended without any formal action on District 4 items, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• He said the other bill does not increase the fee; it just changes the allocation and moves $30 that would
• He said the other bill does not increase the fee; it just changes the allocation and moves $30 that would
• He said the other bill does not increase the fee; it just changes the allocation and moves $30 that would
• He said the other bill does not increase the fee; it just changes the allocation and moves $30 that would
• He said the other bill does not increase the fee; it just changes the allocation and moves $30 that would

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Potential changes to many of these student fees are also dictated by laws relative to how much a fee
• It could be done in a way to keep the total tuition fees the same, as I mentioned, if one fee were increased
• while another fee were decreased.
• The fees are the same.
• “Higher out-of-state fee.

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:

• I have more of a general question on the tuition and fees.
• Potential changes to many of these student fees are also dictated by laws relative to how much a fee
• can change, how the fee change must be approved, etc.
• It could be done in a way to keep the total tuition fees the same, as I mentioned, if one fee were increased
• while another fee were decreased.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education met to examine how Florida’s state universities are funded and to begin discussing a possible university funding model. The panel included the State University System chancellor and CFOs from FSU, UF, FAMU, FAU, UNF, and UCF. Members first reviewed major cost drivers, which the universities said are broadly similar across institutions: wages and benefits, equipment and supplies, financial aid, professional services, utilities, IT, and maintenance. Several institutions noted unique pressures from geography, growth, research intensity, and mission, such as UCF’s size and engineering focus, UF’s land-grant and research enterprise, FAMU’s need to recruit top talent while serving a high-Pell student population, and FSU’s large facilities and research obligations. The chancellor also summarized systemwide cost growth since 2012-13, including higher health insurance, retirement, and salary costs, while noting tuition had been held flat. The committee then discussed other revenue sources, including auxiliaries, restricted funds, capital projects, and component units such as foundations and health systems. University leaders explained that many of these funds are restricted to specific purposes, and some, like UF Health, account for a large share of operating expenses. Members also discussed the current performance-based funding process. University representatives generally praised it for transparency, accountability, and its focus on student success, but said the heavy use of one-time funds, nonrecurring appropriations, and unfunded mandates makes long-term planning difficult. FSU and others argued that rising employee costs, waivers, and facilities expenses are not fully covered, while FAMU said performance funding has improved outcomes but can disadvantage institutions serving more low-income students. In response to questions about improvements, the universities suggested more recurring and predictable funding, better coverage of mandated costs, more flexibility in fees, and continued investment in research and strategic priorities. The chancellor said the Board of Governors is considering a version 3.0 of performance funding that would benchmark institutions against peers and Carnegie classifications. The committee also explored whether universities should have more flexibility to set out-of-state tuition and professional school tuition. Most university leaders favored giving boards of trustees more authority, while the chancellor cautioned that increasing out-of-state enrollment or tuition too much could affect legislative support. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with the chair thanking the panel and adjourning the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• being allocated. being allocated.
• fees are such a large percentage. fees are such a large percentage.
• We traditionally ask the utilities and the engineers what makes the fee not fit the fee schedule and
• So the fee schedule ranges.
• Um so the fee explanation.

Keywords: 00:05 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:34 Approval of Minutes 00:56 Information Items 05:40 Project Rpt from Postsecondary Institutions 14:00 Project Rpt from Finance and Administration Cabinet 20:40 Lease Rpt from Finance and Administration Cabinet 24:53 Rpt from OFM – Ky Infrastructure Authority 40:38 Office of Financial Management 47:39 Remaining 2025 Meeting Dates 48:05 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The meeting began with routine business, including a quorum call, approval of the April minutes, and several informational reports. Those information items covered upcoming general obligation debt for Bullitt, Jefferson, and Warren counties; Kentucky Communications Network Authority updates tied to House Bill 6; Eastern Kentucky University asset preservation reallocations under House Bill 1; and School Facilities Construction Commission debt activity, including 20 prior debt issues totaling about $386 million with roughly 85% locally supported debt service and 15% SFCC participation. Members then discussed concerns about a Kentucky Communications Network Authority project, focusing on a reported discrepancy between an appropriation of $12.927 million and an apparent payment of about $8.532 million on a project with a cost estimate of $12.449 million. Several members asked for more detailed written information before the next Capital Projects meeting, noting that a lawsuit is pending and that they wanted to better understand the basis for the request and the spending to date. The committee also heard and unanimously approved a donor-funded Northern Kentucky University project to renovate tennis courts, with possible pickleball additions, after questions about why approval was needed, the project’s estimated $3 million cost, and its expected minimal ongoing operating costs. The committee next received Kentucky State University pool allocation reports for three projects: a $2 million McCullen Hall renovation, a $1.75 million walkway and miscellaneous repairs project, and a $2 million academic services building roof-and-window project. A member asked specifically about curb cuts and accessibility in the walkway project, and Kentucky State said existing curb cuts would be repaired and additional accessibility issues would be reviewed by engineers. The lease report from the Finance and Administration Cabinet included one lease modification requiring approval for the Attorney General’s office in Franklin County and one no-action modification for the Board of Cosmetology; the Attorney General lease was approved by roll call vote. Finally, the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority presented five loans and 37 grants, with action taken on the loan and grant items. The loans included a Hodgenville wastewater treatment plant increase, a Grant County sewer district treatment plant loan, a Mount Sterling dam rehabilitation loan, and two Morganfield drinking water loans for granular activated carbon treatment, one with full principal forgiveness. Members asked about the Morganfield project’s purpose and were told it was a remediation effort for a water-quality concern, and they also raised questions about engineering fees, which KIA said are compared against a U.S. Rural Development fee schedule that is industry accepted. The committee also reviewed cleaner water program grant reallocations from county allocation pools.

Transcript Highlights:

• The additional allocation.
• Multi-fee payers fee schedule. Thank you.
• That's a small mailer fee program, and this proposal has no impact on those existing fees. fees.
• Again, it's the application and site readiness review fees, which are one-time fees, and then a fee associated
• I'm concerned about the 1% fee that DHCS is recommending for the annual maintenance and operation fees

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So first, there's, in terms of how you allocate it, you can allocate it statutorily either...
• First, there's, in terms of how you allocate it, you can allocate it statutorily, either on a continuously
• So it's about how you want to allocate that money.
• And then just being a continuous allocation.
• It was for some specific fire prevention activities, and so I wouldn't think of this fee as a fee that

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So VLF, vehicle license fee, our favorite topic.
• The vehicle license fee, our favorite topic.
• And our fees are capped at 17% of those revenues.
• The prior fee structure was a flat fee of either $75,000 or $100,000 based on two tiers of total tonnage
• Whereas the new fee structure applies The new fee structure applies a $60 per ton rate, including fractions

Summary: The subcommittee first heard an informational presentation on the May Revision’s proposed reorganization of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into separate housing-focused and consumer/business-focused entities. Administration officials said the split would improve oversight, streamline decision-making, and create a dedicated California Housing and Homelessness Agency with a new housing development and finance committee. The Department of Finance said funding was needed in 2025-26 to begin implementation, while the LAO recommended rejecting the proposal without prejudice because the Little Hoover Commission review was still pending and the plan would require ongoing General Fund costs. Members raised concerns about the timing, the lack of alignment with the budget process, and whether the reorganization would improve accountability for homelessness spending; several public witnesses supported the concept but stressed it could not substitute for new housing and homelessness dollars. The committee then took up the Department of Veterans Affairs. CalVet requested funding for phase three of its electronic health care record project and a trailer bill to preserve authority for federal background checks, but the May Revision withdrew requests for deferred maintenance and additional administrative support. The LAO noted deferred maintenance can prevent larger future costs, and the chair criticized the withdrawal of less than $1 million for veterans’ homes as short-sighted given existing repair needs. No vote was taken. Next, the Department of Housing and Community Development presented its budget. HCD said the May Revision provides no new affordable housing or homelessness funding, but does retain existing rounds of funding and proposes a $31.7 million reversion from undersubscribed housing programs. Members from both parties expressed concern about zeroing out ongoing housing and homelessness investments, especially for LIHTC, the Multifamily Housing Program, and HAP. HCD also defended its homelessness accountability and compliance work, saying the unit includes about 30 program staff and six attorneys, with three additional attorneys requested mainly to handle public records and litigation workload. Public commenters largely opposed the lack of new funding and urged continued support for housing and homelessness programs, while some supported the reorganization and accountability efforts. Finally, the committee heard Go-Biz proposals. The administration requested authority to increase funding for a federal trade program match if needed, plus reappropriations for administrative funds tied to the Containerized Ports Interoperability Grant Program, zero-emission vehicle operations, and the Women’s Business Center Enhancement Program. It also proposed withdrawing the Cal Competes grant request and reverting remaining funds from the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund. The LAO said Cal Competes is generally effective but could be cut as a budget solution, while warning that the performing arts fund was close to awards and should be considered carefully. Members objected to pulling back committed funds for performing arts organizations and questioned why the state would withdraw support after applications had already been submitted.

Transcript Highlights:

• to allocation reducing the allocation to allocation reducing the allocation to Global<00:17:11.199
• then miscellaneous fees.
• It is not part of the licensing fee; it's a separate inspection fee.
• <04:24:33.319> are The fee is $250—the filing fee is $250.
• but our fee is $250.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first reviewed House Bill 1, focusing on the legislative branch budget, especially the Senate and House lines. Members discussed that the Senate’s fiscal year 2025 adjusted authorized amount was higher than 2024 actual spending, largely due to personnel, benefits, and travel, and one member proposed a $500,000 annual cut. Staff explained that any reduction would need to be allocated across specific line items such as personnel, benefits, and travel, and noted that the Senate budget is entirely General Funds. After discussion of how the adjusted authorized figures were calculated and why the branch no longer staffs some joint committees as it once did, the committee moved on without taking a vote on that section. The committee then heard a detailed presentation from the New Hampshire Retirement System. NHRS officials described their statutory administrative budget, which is funded through the retirement trust rather than the General Fund, and said the FY 2026-2027 increase is driven by IT modernization, cybersecurity, a new strategic plan, and additional staff positions. They also reviewed the system’s funding progress, clean audit opinions, investment performance, and changes to asset allocation, while noting that several recent pension-related laws required major database changes. Members questioned the large increase in salaries and benefits, the need for new employees versus contractors, the purpose of training costs, and the source of the Group Two benefit funding. NHRS said the governor’s budget includes General Funds for Group Two benefit changes, with $5 million in FY 2026 and $27.9 million in FY 2027, and that the figures reflect the governor’s recommendation and related HB 2 provisions. Committee members also asked about employer and employee contribution rates for Group Two police and fire members, which NHRS said were not included in the budget document but were about 31.2% for police and 30.35% for fire, with employee shares around 11.55% and 11.8%. The committee did not make a decision on the NHRS budget during this exchange and indicated it would review the details further before returning to it later. The committee then heard from the Community Development Finance Authority on the State Treasury Department budget line for the required state match to administer the federal Community Development Block Grant program. CDFA explained that its $280,000 annual request for FY 2026 and FY 2027, totaling $560,000, supports administration, technical assistance, contracting, and monitoring of roughly $19 million in annual federal CDBG funds. Members asked about the leverage of the state match, oversight of projects, staffing, and grant prioritization. CDFA said it has 18 employees, uses public hearings and a scoring system to prioritize awards, and conducts both desk and on-site monitoring, with annual audits to ensure compliance. No vote was taken on the CDFA item in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any study fees need to be recovered. All of that must take place.
• And not on artificial rates, fees, or deferred maintenance.
• Predictability is important, and they allocate space on the pole logically. and allocates costs economically
• Cost allocation would be appropriate, would it not?
• It's not going to be a set fee.

Bills: HB3445, HB3448

Keywords: telecommunications, electric cooperative, rights-of-way, infrastructure, provider access, right-of-way, pole attachment, regulatory access, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• amend Titles 42 and 17, relative to labor organizations, and to provide relative to employee dues and fees
• provide relative to the domicile of the board, the powers and duties of the board, and administrative fees

Bills: SCR12, HB1259, HB221, HB509, HCR117, HCR58, SCR29, SCR33, SB295, SB312, SB326, SB348, SB485, SCR9, SCR58, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, SB514, HCR32, HCR5, HCR95, HB75, HB198, HB244, HB302, HB325, HB623, HB719, HB749, HB755, HB761, HB797, HB823, HB1028, HB1049, HB1194, HB1199, HB1201, HB1222, HB17, HB27, HB36, HB41, HB73, HB140, HB166, HB181, HB211, HB223, HB226, HB271, HB308, HB337, HB399, HB410, HB487, HB690, HB712, HB730, HB750, HB759, HB762, HB775, HB906, HB966, HB968, HB1006, HB1009, HB1018, HB1036, HB1062, HB1081, HB1086, HB1098, HB1107, HB1112, HB1203, HB1215, HB1220, HB1242, HB1252, HB1256, SB208, SB217, SB274, SB283, SB300, SB341, SB382, SB387, SB389, SB401, SB408, SB449, SB469, HB74, HB119, HB134, HB368, HB414, HB552, HB732, HB776, HB848, HB870, HB953, HB956, HB1117, HB1236, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB78, SB149, SB441, HB210, HB258, HB359, HB468, HB784

Keywords: logging, recognition, John Keith, environment, safety, HB1259, mask penalty, masked felony, face covering, conceal identity, evade identification, sentencing enhancement, enhanced penalty, felony sentencing, crime deterrence, public safety, Louisiana criminal law, R.S. 14:313.2, R.S. 14:313, R.S. 14:329.7

Transcript Highlights:

• to amend Titles 42 and 17, relative to labor organizations, providing relative to employee dues and fees
• provide relative to the domicile of the board, the powers and duties of the board, and administrative fees

Bills: SCR12, HB1259, HB221, HB509, HCR117, HCR58, SCR29, SCR33, SB295, SB312, SB326, SB348, SB485, SCR9, SCR58, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, SB514, HCR32, HCR5, HCR95, HB75, HB198, HB244, HB302, HB325, HB623, HB719, HB749, HB755, HB761, HB797, HB823, HB1028, HB1049, HB1194, HB1199, HB1201, HB1222, HB17, HB27, HB36, HB41, HB73, HB140, HB166, HB181, HB211, HB223, HB226, HB271, HB308, HB337, HB399, HB410, HB487, HB690, HB712, HB730, HB750, HB759, HB762, HB775, HB906, HB966, HB968, HB1006, HB1009, HB1018, HB1036, HB1062, HB1081, HB1086, HB1098, HB1107, HB1112, HB1203, HB1215, HB1220, HB1242, HB1252, HB1256, SB208, SB217, SB274, SB283, SB300, SB341, SB382, SB387, SB389, SB401, SB408, SB449, SB469, HB74, HB119, HB134, HB368, HB414, HB552, HB732, HB776, HB848, HB870, HB953, HB956, HB1117, HB1236, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB78, SB149, SB441, HB210, HB258, HB359, HB468, HB784

Keywords: logging, recognition, John Keith, environment, safety, HB1259, mask penalty, masked felony, face covering, conceal identity, evade identification, sentencing enhancement, enhanced penalty, felony sentencing, crime deterrence, public safety, Louisiana criminal law, R.S. 14:313.2, R.S. 14:313, R.S. 14:329.7

Summary: The Senate convened with 26 members present, heard a prayer from Dr. Steve Horn, and recited the pledge. The chamber then handled messages from the House, including concurrence in SCR 83 and appointment of conference committee members on several disagreements. A number of Senate resolutions were introduced or adopted, mostly creating study task forces or commending individuals and organizations, including resolutions on energy infrastructure, breast pump access, insurance coverage for auto repairs, biomarker testing, higher education funding, public-private partnership contracting, and various commendations. Several resolutions were adopted without objection, while others were returned to the calendar or concurred in by recorded vote, including SCR 29 and SCR 33 with House amendments. The Senate also considered House and Senate bills and resolutions returned from the House, with many measures adopted or concurred in. Notable actions included concurrence in HCR 117 on homeowner insurance claims processes, adoption of HCR 5 on special red drum harvest permits, and passage of bills on TOPS Tech eligibility (HB 325), vapor product permitting (HB 623), ABLE/Tuition Trust administration (HB 749), design services contracting (HB 755), rare cancer advisory board composition (HB 761), non-emergency medical transportation reimbursement (HB 1028), public meeting notices (HB 1049), healthy food retail financing (HB 1194), genetic testing coverage for SCN2A disorders (HB 1199), grocery initiative grants (HB 1222, which failed), and a constitutional amendment on retirement debt repayment order (HB 27). The chamber also adopted HCR 95, creating a joint rule requiring a fiscal review of certain tax measures for sales and use tax uniformity. Several measures drew extended debate. HB 181, which would allow the legislative auditor access to Medicaid and SNAP-related tax information for eligibility verification and fraud review, prompted concerns about privacy and scope but ultimately passed 26-8. HB 1220 on the State Board of Medical Examiners generated amendment discussion about board composition and transparency, including live video broadcasting of meetings, but was returned to the calendar before final action. HB 1018, creating a temporary local moratorium on certain alcohol permits in one Shreveport district, passed after discussion about broader policy solutions. The Senate then recessed for lunch at 2 p.m. after completing the subject-to-call list for the morning session.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are allocating $12 million for the graduation alternative to traditional education.
• We are allocating $62.7 million for learning at the University of Florida. Go Gators!
• We are keeping in the FEF fee. I think it's better.
• We're going to empower each university to set their own out-of-state tuition fees.
• Applied to their tuition and fees; no double dipping here.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So there is a savings associated with the shift to fee for service.
• 10 days’ worth of cash left, and we allocated them $25 million.
• 10 days’ worth of cash left, and we allocated them $25 million.
• So there’s a $90 million allocation. Planned Parenthood allocation for $90 million.
• It would make more sense just to allocate less.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• payers fee schedule.
• That's a small mailer fee program. And this proposal has no impact on those existing fees.
• That's a small mail or fee program. And this proposal has no impact on those existing fees.
• Again, it's the application and site readiness review fees, which are one-time fees, and then a fee associated
• fees.

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The exam fees account for 10 to 20% of the expenditures.
• The exam fees account for 10 to 20% of the expenditures.
• , with a majority made up of charter school payments and tuition and fees.
• But I thought we’d already paid the tuitions and fees.
• We thought we’d already paid the tuitions and fees.

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2025 session and received an overview of add-on weights in the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP), followed by a Department of Education presentation on a legislatively required study of add-on weight funding and expenditures. The chair explained that add-on weights apply to acceleration and career programs such as AP, IB, ACE, CAPE, dual enrollment, early graduation, and certain small-district needs, and noted that add-on funding has grown substantially as the base student allocation increased. The chair also raised concerns that the department’s report did not clearly show whether districts’ reported costs included the full costs required by the proviso, and asked for more specificity on any recommended adjustment to the weights. Deputy Commissioner Suzanne Pridgen said the department surveyed districts on how they spent add-on revenue for fiscal years 2021-22 through 2023-24, with categories including teacher compensation, materials, equipment, professional development, exam fees, counseling, apprenticeship costs, and other expenditures. She said most add-on funds were spent on teacher bonuses and compensation, with AP, ACE, CAPE, and dual enrollment showing the largest increases in spending in 2023-24 due to higher FEFP funding; IB and early graduation were relatively flat. The department reported that add-on revenue covered between 41.8% and 79.2% of total program expenditures in 2023-24 and recommended adjusting add-on weights to better align with pre-2023-24 funding relationships, though no specific percentage was given during the meeting. Members asked about how “other” expenditures were categorized, whether teacher compensation included only statutory bonuses, how dual enrollment tuition and fees were counted, the small district factor, and whether the weights incentivize districts to offer advanced programs. The department clarified that teacher compensation in the study referred only to bonuses, that some “other” costs included charter school payments and dual enrollment tuition/fees, and that the small district factor is 1.0277, increasing base funding by 2.77% for fiscally constrained counties. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> The impact fee?
• with that impact fee. with that impact fee.
• >> The the impact fee? >> The the impact fee?
• <00:21:24.960> and<00:21:25.120> the fee um because the impact fee and the fee um because
• Thank you. fees going forward. So fees going forward.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint House committees on Housing and Education heard HB 1713, HD1, which would repeal school impact fees and transfer remaining balances in the school impact fee and certain fair share accounts to the school facilities special fund. The Department of Education testified in opposition, while the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, the Attorney General’s office (with comments and suggested constitutional amendments), the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, NAP Hawaii, Avalon Development Company, Mark Development, Maui Chamber of Commerce, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Landis Research Foundation, BIA Hawaii, and others testified in support. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii offered comments. The DOE said the bill would weaken a key tool for matching school facilities to residential growth, while supporters said the current program leaves funds unused or restricted in ways that limit their effectiveness. A lengthy discussion followed about the difference between the older school impact fee program and the separate fair share agreements tied to land use entitlements and change-of-zone approvals. DOE Deputy Superintendent Jesse Suki explained that fair share funds are tied to the district where they were collected, may be too small to build a full school on their own, and are held until needed for projects such as Core Ridge, Central and West Maui, and other planned schools. Committee members pressed DOE on why funds had remained unspent for years, how much money was in the accounts, and whether the department had reviewed audit findings about the program. Members also questioned whether homeowners ultimately bear these costs through developers passing them along. The committee did not take a vote during the portion of the meeting provided. The discussion ended with members and DOE debating whether the current statute should remain in place, whether past entitlements should be affected, and whether the bill should be amended to better address remaining construction-related obligations and the use of collected funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• I noticed here that for emergency grants that were allocated, $2.5 million were allocated throughout
• I noticed here that for emergency grants that were allocated, $2.5 million were allocated throughout
• He said the allocation framework comes to the amount of funding available to allocate as a system on
• illustrates um how we how we allocate illustrates um how we how we allocate funding<01:22:59.880
• The allocation process.

Keywords: 1183, house