Transcript Highlights:

• There's a table there that shows all of those statutory allocations.
• So the mix of how much should be given away for free and to what entities and how much should be used
• Many of those statutory allocations have been in place for about 10 years.
• Many of those statutory allocations have been in place for about 10 years.
• But it's not technically, you know, a statutory allocation that's been codified.

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:

• There is a statutory reference to a minimum contribution.
• The program supports covered entities in two ways.
• Covered entities are subject to two major restrictions.
• Many covered entities, including rural providers and health centers, cannot afford to run an entity-operated
• The hospital eats them or the covered entity eats them.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They asked and I agreed to reduce the statutory civil penalty substantially.
• There are already existing statutory penalties that exist in the act itself.
• These are fixed damages, and in some cases up to 3 times those fixed statutory damages.
• And, um, so we substantially reduced those statutory damages. Thank you for that.
• So what kind of entities are we talking about here, Mr. President?

Transcript Highlights:

• We're also seeing it more often in statutory language.
• So those in teal, those states in teal, have statutory...
• Those in teal, those states in teal, have statutory authorization to use SAVE.
• Well over a dozen open inquiries, audits, and investigations from various federal entities, including
• And sometimes that requires having an entity that can just say, here's what everybody needs to do.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• had asked them to consider U statutory had asked them to consider U statutory changes<00:14:53.600
• We're okay with the statutory authority to create raffles. I am not okay with any raffles.
• This is allowing the department to charge some entities that weren't getting charged.
• history records to a federal entity history records to a federal entity entity<01:43:44.800>
• <01:44:02.560> that department to charge some entities that department to charge some entities

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division II work session focused on Fish and Game’s budget-revenue proposals and several statutory changes the department said it needs to support its operations. The department recommended raising the fisheries habitat fee and wildlife habitat fee to $5 each, estimating additional annual revenue of about $640,000 and $144,000 respectively. Members clarified that these are habitat fees added on top of licenses, not reduced by senior or youth license categories, and discussed the need for RSA changes to allow the revenue to be transferred into the Fish and Game Fund. The department also said it would work internally on any broader license fee increases through the commission process. The committee then reviewed proposals to cap several dedicated accounts and transfer excess balances to the unrestricted Fish and Game Fund. Those accounts included the fisheries and wildlife habitat funds and the game management account, with the department proposing a $750,000 cap on each and transfer of amounts above that threshold. The department said the cap was based on several years of expenditures and the fact that dedicated funds are often used as match for federal funds. Members asked for reports on fund activity and questioned whether the cap and mandatory transfer language should be “shall” or “may,” with the department indicating it would prefer “may” for flexibility. The committee also discussed a Pheasant Management Program account, where the department said current law limits use of the money to buying and propagating pheasants and it wants authority to use it for broader program management. A substantial portion of the meeting addressed Fish and Game’s environmental review unit and the transfer of ARPA-funded positions to DEES under the governor’s initiative. The department said four positions are currently ARPA-funded, that DEES supports keeping them in place through the end of the year, and that the transition will require time because environmental review work is intertwined across the agency. The department explained that before the ARPA positions, biologists handled the work and that current staffing has helped eliminate a backlog and meet deadlines. Members also discussed a proposal to expand environmental review fees beyond private developers to state, federal, municipal, and local governments, with the department saying it would need rulemaking and stakeholder input. Additional requests included authority to conduct raffles to raise funds, creation of a revolving account for donations and raffle proceeds, and repeal of the obsolete fish food sales statute because the vending machines are no longer functional and the account generates no revenue.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, the community other uh entities.
• Are you saying you need statutory?
• There's been no development entity.
• legislature to tighten the statutory legislature to tighten the statutory language.<03:09:12.399
• project funding with limited statutory project funding with limited statutory guardrails.<03:10:

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no statutory inundation to get to that three. And then on top of the current law.
• So the statutory emendations that are contemplated in HB 1, that's where we get the 3.5.
• Most of those are the entities themselves.
• You said the entities? Yes. And who are they? Well it depends on what they are.
• And, you know, that the responsibility of those entities is to maintain.

Keywords: infrastructure, water supply, flood mitigation, Texas Water Fund, community projects, funding allocations

Summary: During this committee meeting, the focus was on discussing critical infrastructure funding, especially related to water supply and flood mitigation projects. Chairwoman Stepney and the Water Development Board presented extensive details regarding the Texas Water Fund, which included $1 billion appropriated to assist various financial programs and tackle pressing water and wastewater issues. Additionally, funding allocations aimed at compromising the state's flood risk and improving water conservation were hotly debated, emphasizing collaboration among committee members and the necessity of addressing community needs in such projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 26 of the Constitution requires a minimum of $90 million annually to be distributed to local entities
• The annual allocation to the local entities can be found on pages 40 through 43 of this bill.
• The agencies in this bill operate on fees, self-generated revenues, interagency transfers, statutory
• funded in the State General Fund, $9.4 million from interagency transfers, and $11.8 million from statutory
• funded in the State General Fund, $9.4 million from interagency transfers, and $11.8 million from statutory

Bills: HB1, HB2, HB3, HB312, HB313, HB314, HB383, HB983, HB1126, HCR3

Keywords: state budget, appropriations, education funding, public health, social services, government operations, state institutions, capital outlay, budget, infrastructure, appropriation, general obligation bonds, bond authorization, capital improvement, financial management, state treasury, funding, state general fund, local government, fiscal year

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know the statutory construction.
• But then when we put a government entity in the statute, they say it's too broad.
• function I I don't know the statutory function I I don't know the statutory construction<01:00:35.000
• government entity government entity but<01:01:26.799> then<01:01:27.119> when<01:01
• but then when we put a government entity but then when we put a government entity in<01:01:28.640

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on House Bill 271, which would remove the exam requirement for licensure as a Licensed Social Work Associate (LSWA). The chair and several members expressed reservations about repealing a requirement that was only created in 2021, arguing that licensure should include some measurable demonstration of competency and that it is too early to judge whether the current standard is working. Members also raised concerns about the social work compact and the lack of uniformity across states, saying that changing the requirement now could undermine the standards New Hampshire agreed to at the outset. Testimony in support of the bill argued that the LSWA exam is a barrier for applicants because the level is intended for people without formal social work education, and the exam is the same national exam used for licensed social workers. The witness said there is only one LSWA in New Hampshire, so there is little pass/fail data, but noted that the Association of Social Worker Boards reported 78% of its membership favored retaining the exam. Supporters also emphasized that LSWA holders complete 30 hours of training and extensive supervised hours, and that they are not intended to work independently. Opponents or skeptics questioned whether the exam is the right measure for this role and asked for data showing actual failures or barriers. The discussion turned to possible alternatives, including a different exam, a practical skills assessment, or broader rulemaking authority for the board to set LSWA criteria. One suggestion was to amend the law to give the board authority to develop appropriate standards in rulemaking, rather than naming a specific exam in statute. Members also discussed whether the board could create a more suitable assessment and noted that the current law requires a national proctored examination approved by the board, but there is no national exam specifically for LSWA. No final vote or action was taken in the excerpt, and the subcommittee indicated it would gather more information, including the existing rule language, before moving the bill forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• , the Arizona Board of Regents is a 12-member board constitutionally established as the governing entity
• , the Arizona Board of Regents is a 12-member board constitutionally established as the governing entity
• ADE or the SBE may require such entities to apply before providing an alternative education program or
• program or alternative school may appeal the decision to the SBE and remain eligible to use the statutory
• There are a lot of... eligible to use the statutory provisions until the appeal is concluded.

Bills: SB1026, SB1126, SB1143, SB1166

Keywords: alternative education, school funding, student accountability, education reform, school district governance, educational records, student privacy, FERPA, family educational rights and privacy act, Department of Child Safety, DCS caseworker, child welfare, abuse or neglect, juvenile justice, juvenile court, juvenile corrections, school records, discipline records, attendance records, school district

Transcript Highlights:

• Also, we know that ultimately right now within the code-making process, one of the entities involved,
• Also, we know that ultimately right now within the code-making process, one of the entities involved,
• It's because they prefer the rule promulgation process over statutory changes.
• considerably more time to implement our new building codes here in Michigan, we elected to go through a statutory
• It's because they prefer the rule promulgation process over statutory changes.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing and Human Services met with a quorum, adopted the June 16, 2026 minutes, and then unanimously adopted S-1 substitutes for House Bills 5570 and 5571. The chair said the committee would take testimony and likely not move to final passage that day, in order to allow more discussion and questions. The bills, as substituted, would allow local governments to permit certain multifamily buildings up to four stories to be built or converted with a single staircase, subject to conditions such as limits on units per floor, floor size, and existing fire safety requirements. A sunset provision was described as ending the statute once LARA adopts corresponding building code rules. Representatives Fairbairn and Wooden testified in support, saying the bills are intended to address Michigan’s housing shortage by making smaller infill and “missing middle” projects more feasible and less costly. They argued the current two-stair requirement drives up costs, makes land assembly harder, and limits development on narrow or irregular lots. Senators asked about stair width, emergency safety, the choice of four stories instead of six, and why the American Institute of Architects opposed the approach; the sponsors said the 48-inch stair width was intended to allow two-way movement, four stories was a compromise aligned with expected code changes, and the architects preferred rulemaking over statutory change. Supportive testimony came from Pew Charitable Trusts, which said research from New York City, Seattle, and other places found fire death rates in modern single-stair buildings to be indistinguishable from other multifamily buildings, and that modern safety features such as sprinklers, alarms, and fire-rated construction make these buildings safe. A developer from Ann Arbor and the Michigan Home Builders Association said the reform would improve floor-plan efficiency, reduce wasted circulation space, lower construction costs, and help smaller projects pencil out. Abundant Housing Michigan also supported the bills, estimating they could reduce apartment construction costs by nearly 13%. The clerk read in numerous written cards in support from business, housing, municipal, and advocacy groups, while the Michigan Association of Fire Chiefs and the Michigan Professional Firefighters Union were listed as neutral. The committee adjourned without further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is where if you look at the definition, statutory definitions for prescriber and for dispenser
• So to kind of piggyback off the Vice Chair's question, in that statutory framework, is the task force
• So to kind of piggyback off the Vice Chair's question, in that statutory framework, is the task force
• There hasn’t been a statutory change.
• Do we expand this as these fields become available, or do we back up into the statutory situation and

Summary: The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules met to consider a Missouri Prescription Drug Monitoring Program rule proposal after the Department of Natural Resources withdrew its items. The hearing focused on 1 CSR 60-1.010, which would expand delegate-level PDMP access to additional licensed behavioral health professionals, including licensed clinical social workers, licensed master social workers, marital and family therapists, professional counselors, and psychologists, while also correcting prior rule language involving medical assistants and clinical nurse specialists. Testimony from the PDMP executive director and supporters from Compass Health and the Department of Mental Health argued the change would improve care coordination, medication reconciliation, and safety in multidisciplinary behavioral health settings, especially CCBHCs. They said access would remain limited to licensed professionals working under a prescriber/dispenser relationship, with individual logins and penalties for misuse. Opponents and some committee members raised concerns that the rule would expand access beyond the original statutory framework without legislative change, could be used beyond treatment purposes, and should instead be addressed through statute rather than rulemaking. After public testimony, the committee debated whether the proposal exceeded statutory authority and whether the expansion was too substantive for rulemaking alone. A motion was made to disapprove the rule on grounds including lack of statutory authority, conflict with state law, and arbitrariness. The motion passed by a roll call vote of 7-1, and the committee disapproved Rule 1 CSR 60-1.010 before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• subject matter of the bill, there, there are a lot of these, a lot of these, um, a lot of these entities
• The bill is is introduced requires campground entities to submit these plans to the Texas Division of
• This change ensures that TDM remains in the loop on the disaster plan, but we do not have two entities
• Entities are able to send up an application.
• And that's the statutory authority that's provided here in terms of background checks for this.

Bills: HB1, HB 2, HB18, HB19, HB20

Keywords: youth camps, emergency preparedness, safety standards, health regulations, camp licensing, disaster preparedness, emergency management, flooding, mass fatality, mass casualty, fatality tracking, body recovery, autopsy, justice of the peace, medical examiner, county judge, sheriff, mayor, emergency coordinator, emergency manager license

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Whip and members, House Bill 2875 transfers statutory provisions relating to prohibiting a local
• Now the system is back on and only requires a memorandum of understanding between a government entity
• taking an action against a justice of the peace's statutory authority.
• Staff did a great job describing the foreign entities who are hostile.
• The bill also outlines the entity for which fund monies will be allocated.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The meeting covered a long series of bills, mostly in health, education, commerce, federalism, and government. In health, members discussed radiology technology updates (HB 2050), a tribal Medicaid waiver/drawdown measure with no state cost (HB 2177), an emergency medicine study committee (HB 2183), fetal death certificate and remains-transfer requirements (HB 2184), a physician assistant licensure compact (HB 2190), dementia care telemonitoring funding (HB 2202), SNAP error-rate reduction and fraud/eligibility oversight bills (HB 2206, HB 2442, HB 2797), child welfare protections like credit freezes and recorded interviews (HB 2321, HB 2322), and podiatric licensure compacts (HB 2438). Several of these were described as consent-calendar items, while HB 2206 and the SNAP-related measures drew discussion about fraud reduction, administrative burden, and work requirements. In commerce and finance, the committee heard bills on mobile food vendors and local permits (HB 2118), earned wage access services with fee caps and disclosure rules (HB 2309), CPA licensure changes (HB 2476), cash acceptance for retail purchases under $100 (HB 2555), drone delivery and unmanned aircraft guardrails (HB 2875), timeshare salesperson licensing (HB 2877), and a prohibition on state-mandated social credit scoring in lending decisions (HB 2903). The tax and retirement-related items included 529 plan conformity and Roth IRA transfer rules (HB 2477), annual tax conformity to the Internal Revenue Code (HB 2785), ASRS technical and disability-related changes (HB 2089, HB 2090, HB 2092), and a bill on employee health insurance definitions (HB 2089). The Arizona Commerce Authority bill (HB 2754) would add legislative members to the board and shift more control over trade offices and Arizona Competes Fund spending to the legislature. The education section focused heavily on school governance and finance. Bills included patriotic youth group presentations in schools (HB 2312), school board term limits (HB 2318), mandatory training for governing board members (HB 2379), independent municipal advisors for bond elections (HB 2320), restrictions on districts buying operating charter/private school sites to game enrollment formulas (HB 2376), conflict-of-interest limits for school facilities board architects and engineers (HB 2378), public meeting and travel transparency rules for districts (HB 2380), limits on long-term school property leases and reporting requirements (HB 2384), tighter bidding rules for school construction job orders using Building Renewal Grant funds (HB 2482), and a voluntary computer science proficiency seal (HB 2764). Sponsors repeatedly framed these as transparency, accountability, and anti-abuse measures, while some opposition centered on local flexibility, housing use, and existing training providers. In federalism and government, the committee heard bills to give counties more time to mail sample ballots (HB 2006), require courts to identify veterans at first appearance for possible veterans court referral (HB 2226), study veterans’ awareness of benefits (HB 2406), broaden military leave protections (HB 2663), require SAVE verification for voter registration and certain state services (HB 2806), require U.S.-sourced voting machine components by 2029 (HB 2901), affirm the Electoral College (HB 2902), and establish due process protections for justice of the peace courts against outside administrative action (HB 2976). Government committee items included a later deadline for library trustees’ annual reports (HB 2129), a two-year limit on certain adult protective services reports to the Attorney General (HB 2228), and an exemption for public and semi-public cold plunges from ADEQ spa rules (HB 2439). Several bills were reported as consent-calendar items, and a number of sponsors noted committee votes, fiscal neutrality, or favorable testimony in support of the measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• When an entity is willing to comply, the process can work, obviously.
• The state communicated; other entities have not.
• The state communicated; other entities have not.
• generated by law enforcement entities generated by law enforcement entities and<00:31:53.200>
• that public and private entities that public and private entities collect,<00:53:38.480> utilize

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee continued its hearing on enforcement and compliance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, first taking additional public testimony from Melissa Zimmerman and Matt Senot of the East Side Corridor residents in Owatonna. They described submitting roughly two dozen data requests across several government entities related to a proposed highway project, saying some agencies responded but others did not, and that even after they substantially prevailed in a data practices complaint and the court imposed a maximum civil penalty, they still did not receive meaningful access to the records. Zimmerman said the lack of access harmed their ability to comment on the project’s environmental review, and both witnesses argued that the law needs stronger enforcement, realistic timelines, better communication, and more accessible remedies for requesters who cannot afford repeated litigation. They also raised practical barriers such as inaccessible file formats, missing software on a county-provided laptop, and the need for electronic delivery options. The committee then heard from Eric Johnson of Anoka County, who testified about Chapter 13 issues involving third-party polygraph data used in probation monitoring. He argued that when the state relies on third-party-generated summaries, the responsible authority’s obligations for access, retention, and correction are unclear, and there is no effective remedy when the third party does not respond. Johnson said the county directed him to seek raw data from the third party, which had not responded, and he warned that short retention periods can make data subject rights unenforceable if the records are destroyed before a request is resolved. Members asked about statutory citations and retention schedules, and several commented that the issue may warrant review of data-retention rules. During member discussion, legislators broadly agreed that the Data Practices Act’s enforcement mechanisms are not working well enough and that many requesters cannot afford to pursue administrative or court remedies. Co-Chair Scott suggested staff compile the testimony into a report to identify possible legislative fixes, while Senator Lucero said there may be some “low-hanging fruit” that could be addressed quickly in the short session. The chair also floated the idea of involving the Office of Collaboration and Dispute Resolution in a mediation role to improve communication and reduce gridlock, though members noted that any process would still need to produce results consistent with the law. The committee then moved on to its next agenda item, a discussion of the BCA Fusion Center and its annual reporting requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have two bills under business entity reorganization.
• The provisions of that chapter deal with standardizing requirements for entities such as entity filings
• , the naming requirements for business entities, registered agent requirements, foreign entities, merger
• There's about 15 different entity statutes.
• It doesn't take away the uniqueness of each entity type. They still are those entity types.

Keywords: 985, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:43:58.560> or are independent nonprofit entities or are independent nonprofit entities
• part of umbrella nonprofit entities part of umbrella nonprofit entities who<00:44:02.120> actually
• It basically establishes the statutory It basically establishes the statutory framework<00:45:17.400
• state entity that to codify our entity state entity that supports<00:46:11.280> and<00:46:11.400
• <00:46:39.520> framework want to establish a statutory framework want to establish a statutory

Bills: SB118, SB203, HB420, HB414, HB363, HB405, HB261, HB263, HB327, HB348, HB228, HB282, SB273, HB7, SB296, SB199, SB47, SB204, HB80, HB11, HB192

Keywords: bail, offenses, constitutional amendment, criminal justice, law enforcement, public safety, dental insurance, medical loss ratio, premium regulation, insurance commissioner, rebate, consumer protection, Baldwin County, local bill, education funding, school tax, privilege license tax, county tax revenue, municipal school board, Baldwin County Board of Education

Transcript Highlights:

• This does not prohibit supplemental use or other applicable statutory laws from being enforced.
• This does not prohibit supplemental use or other applicable statutory laws from being enforced.
• This does not prohibit supplemental use or other applicable statutory laws from being enforced.
• individual, corporation or other entity. individual, corporation or other entity.
• So when I say section now, I'm talking about the statutory section.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ... ...county attorneys to the statutory maximum.
• In addition to that, there are statutory minimums that are included in these sections.
• And then another entity most likely coming on at that same time.
• One of the things we've done with the entities being able to opt into the EGI program...
• The Insurance Department is really the review entity who looks over employees group insurance.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The department also partners with seven managing entities across the state to implement a comprehensive
• Then we also updated the manual again in October 2025; we just addressed more recent statutory changes
• In October 2025, we just addressed more recent statutory changes that included, from last session, House
• More specifically, we can delineate the appropriations per ME, but each managing entity utilizes the
• So, to illustrate one success story, a managing entity shared the story of an individual who entered

Summary: The Human Services Subcommittee met to receive an update from the Florida Department of Children and Families on implementation of House Bill 7021, which revised the Baker Act and Marchman Act and was funded with a $50 million appropriation. Deputy Assistant Secretary Bill Hardin reported that the department has updated reference guides, training, administrative rules, and forms; launched regional behavioral health collaboratives; and created the Office of Children’s Behavioral Health Ombudsman. He said early data show continued declines in Baker Act use, high diversion rates from involuntary examinations through 988, mobile response teams, and care coordination, along with generally positive provider feedback on changes such as allowing psychiatric nurses to initiate emergency treatment orders and clarifying the 72-hour examination period. Hardin also described Marchman Act changes, including a streamlined petition process, remote testimony, improved discharge planning, and a new annual data report. He said the department has completed or is completing multiple training courses for providers and law enforcement, and has adopted or is finalizing numerous rules and forms. He reported that the regional collaboratives are identifying common statewide needs such as service capacity, resource sharing, funding flexibility, and peer support, while the ombudsman office is handling complaints and helping families navigate services. Members asked about whether the current funding is sufficient, future budget needs, outreach for the new ombudsman office, and services for juveniles. Hardin said DCF has posted legislative budget requests for additional forensic FACT services and short-term residential treatment beds, including children’s beds, and noted the ombudsman office is staffed with two FTEs and supported through existing complaint-management and regional systems. He said outreach is being done through regional collaboratives and coordination with other agencies, especially the Department of Education, and that juvenile transport and placement issues have improved with the new law. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentation and questions.