Transcript Highlights:

• changes contribute to the large cost changes contribute to the large cost shown<00:19:45.280>
• appreciation and also a 5-year cost appreciation and also a 5-year cost recovery<00:37:38.720>
• HR1 increased the maximum excluded.
• :58.640> to This provision allowed employees to This provision allowed employees to exclude<00
• <00:55:15.839> that these are the uh estimated costs that these are the uh estimated costs

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Group G does allow a member to reach their maximum retirement allowance after 20 years of service as
• <00:07:49.680> for employer share of pension costs for employer share of pension costs for
• These costs are not their employees.
• > reach<00:09:25.360> their<00:09:25.680> maximum allow a member to reach their
• maximum allow a member to reach their maximum retirement<00:09:26.959> allowance<00:09:28.080>

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, that does not, I don't believe, raise the maximum.
• Uh but it believe raises the maximum.
• we changing any of the maximums? we changing any of the maximums?
• c><00:46:29.839> to allows the intervention court to allows the intervention court to actually
• Services for any reasonable costs Services for any reasonable costs directly<00:49:04.240> related

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 25 February, 2026; 9:00 A.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 611, which would require the Mississippi Board of Law Enforcement Standards and Training to provide discovery to an officer facing suspension of certification. Representative Burch said officers currently may receive only a brief notice of alleged misconduct without access to the underlying information, and the bill would give them the materials related to the infraction. There were no questions, and the committee approved the motion by voice vote. The next measure, House Bill 1142, would modernize notice requirements for judgment nisi and bench warrants by allowing clerks to notify bail agents electronically or by personal notice instead of certified mail. Representative Owen said the change would reduce county costs, align bail-agent notice with the electronic notice already used for attorneys, and had support from the clerks’ association. Senators asked whether notice would still appear on MEC, and Owen said attorneys already receive notice there and bail agents could receive it electronically as well. The committee then adopted the motion by voice vote. The committee then heard House Bill 1404, sponsored by Representative Yates, creating the crime of fraudulent utility conversion. Yates explained the bill was aimed at apartment complexes and other landlords that collect utility payments from tenants as part of rent but fail to remit those funds to the utility provider, citing large unpaid water bills and similar legislation in Louisiana. Senators raised concerns about intent, possible criminal liability for landlords or LLCs when utility bills are delayed, faulty, or disputed, and the severity of penalties, which could reach 20 years in prison for higher amounts. Yates said she was open to adding intentional-conduct language and clarified the bill targets those who collect tenant utility money and do not remit it, not tenants themselves. Members discussed possible amendments, including adding mens rea language and a defense for disputed bills, but no final action on the bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are provisions that could theoretically allow it through what's called a data mining waiver.
• But if we look at real-time data, it wouldn't be a perfect substitute for it, but what it would allow
• That's the maximum.
• The next increment goes down; $35,000 is the maximum is the highest threshold.
• That's a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The fine I would have to look up.

Bills: HF3043, HF2891

Keywords: public safety, illegal remunerations, healthcare fraud, grants, criminal penalties, state law, grants management, state employees training, certification, monitoring grants, accountability, grant fraud

Transcript Highlights:

• How do we reduce labor costs further through automation? I don't envy you.
• We came forward, no more cuts, and with a very high cost of living.
• We came forward: no more cuts, and with a very high cost of living.
• So the federal government allows for a credit for taxes paid.
• They're certainly allowed to operate there.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue, chaired by Senator James Eldridge and Representative Adrian Madaro, opened its hearing with a moment of silence for the late Lowell State Senator Ed Kennedy and reviewed hearing procedures and deadlines. The committee then took testimony on several corporate tax bills, including S. 2033/H. 3110 on offshore tax avoidance, H. 3248 on a manufacturing tax exemption, H. 3057 on a tiered corporate minimum tax, and S. 2041 on a corporate tax haven blacklist, along with a separate business interest deduction bill. No votes were taken during the hearing. Supporters of S. 2033/H. 3110, including labor unions, health care workers, educators, public health advocates, seniors, and several legislators, argued that Massachusetts needs new revenue to offset federal cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, health care, education, and other services. They said the bill would raise roughly $400 million annually by increasing the share of offshore profits included in the state tax base from 5% to 50%, and they framed it as a fairness measure that would require large multinational corporations to pay more while leaving most local businesses and workers unaffected. Testimony emphasized risks to MassHealth, PCA services, adult dental care, hospitals, schools, and public health programs if new revenue is not raised. Opponents, including the Mass Taxpayers Foundation and the Council on State Taxation, argued the proposal is poor tax policy and likely unconstitutional because it would tax foreign-source income without allowing foreign tax credits or a comparable apportionment method. They said Massachusetts should take a broader, coordinated approach to federal tax changes rather than a standalone bill, and warned of litigation risk and possible double taxation. Supporters such as MassBudget and former tax counsel Don Griswold countered that the bill is a reasonable rough-justice approach, consistent with federal and neighboring-state treatment, and that it would primarily affect a small number of very large multinationals. On S. 2041, the Global Business Alliance opposed the proposed tax haven blacklist, while supporting a separate bill allowing business interest deductibility.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill also allows for future growth without the need to define future The Ride Safe Act.
• Allowing us to incorporate that type of extra measure for these batteries is important.
• Thank you for your time and for allowing me to testify today.
• , there's a law that allows the police to confiscate it.
• GEICO doesn't allow you to insure anything under 100 cc's.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation held a hybrid hearing on the governor’s Ride Safe Act, S. 3077, and related micromobility bills. Chairs and administration officials described the bill as a statewide, speed-based framework for e-bikes, scooters, mopeds, and similar devices, intended to replace outdated device categories with clearer rules for age limits, helmets, equipment, operating locations, registration, insurance for higher-speed devices, and restrictions on tampering. They also emphasized improved crash-data collection, a working group for future updates, and battery safety standards such as UL certification to reduce fire risk. Committee members asked about enforcement, shared-use paths, commuter rail accommodations, battery storage, and how the bill would apply to other vehicles like quads; the administration said some issues would need further study or follow-up. Testimony from advocates, municipal officials, and commission members was mixed but generally supportive of clearer statewide rules. Transportation and safety advocates backed the speed-based tier system but urged additional measures, including a default speed limit on shared-use paths, automated enforcement, and more funding for Complete Streets and Shared Streets programs. Bike shop and police representatives said current laws are confusing for riders and law enforcement and that better definitions and data reporting are needed. Several speakers stressed that enforcement and education will be critical, and that local patchwork rules are difficult to apply consistently. Medical testimony strongly supported tighter protections for young riders. Pediatric emergency and trauma doctors described a sharp rise in serious injuries and deaths involving e-bikes and scooters, including severe pediatric cases, and urged amendments adding a minimum age for faster devices and a universal helmet requirement. They argued that the force and weight of these devices make crashes more dangerous than conventional bicycles and pointed to past Massachusetts safety laws as evidence that age and equipment restrictions can reduce injuries. Some public testimony opposed the bill as written, especially from moped commuters who argued that gas-powered mopeds are being treated differently from comparable electric devices and should be included in the framework. They called for clearer rules on bike-lane access, insurance, parking, and statewide standards for mopeds as vulnerable road users. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee heard testimony and questions only.

Transcript Highlights:

• Six companies that are allowed to do business, big companies that are allowed to operate.
• Tolerance there to allow for conditions that might not allow for the loader or the driver to know that
• The maximum weight allowed is 80,000 pounds.
• The maximum weight allowed is 80,000 pounds.
• going to have incarceration costs, and you know, courts and incarceration costs on the second-degree

Bills: SB2199, SB2200, SB2201, SB2949, SB2332

Keywords: overweight vehicle, vehicle weight limits, hazardous materials, hazmat, cargo tank, fuel transport, trucking, commercial vehicle, Transportation Code, criminal penalty, second-degree felony, loading violation, truck weight, axle weight, gross weight, public safety, commercial carrier, Texas, commercial truck, truck route

Transcript Highlights:

• a clear message to that and it allows a clear message to that and it allows our<00:42:55.520>
• We should not allow New Hampshire to face the cost of sanctuary policies that have proven so costly to
• increase their maximum square footage. increase their maximum square footage.
• <02:07:57.119> The informed of rules and cost. The informed of rules and cost.
• Thank you, Madam President. 20% of the cost per pupil. I ask the 20% of the cost per pupil.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• amount of turnout, the maximum amount of people participating.
• amount of turnout, the maximum amount of people participating.
• part of the answer was to allow part of the answer was to allow communities<00:54:09.000> to<
• ><00:54:21.240> further type of provision why not allow further type of provision why not allow
• <01:18:57.280> more appreciate that it um uh allows more appreciate that it um uh allows more

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I can explain when we get there why the 2023 cost is a lot less than the 2025 cost.
• cost.
• Maximum benefit.
• This is the cost. So um it's paid for. This is the cost.
• Do you know uh what this kind of cost cost cost is<00:44:49.359> in<00:44:49.599> some<

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee reviewed a handout comparing House Bill 2 to current retirement law and walked through the bill section by section with staff from the retirement system. The discussion focused on vesting, earnable compensation, average final compensation, compensation-over-base limits, special duty pay, normal retirement age, re-retirement, and maximum benefit rules for Group 2/Tier B members. Staff explained that some provisions would restore pre-2011 rules, including counting certain end-of-career payments such as unused sick and vacation time in earnable compensation and reducing the AFC averaging period from five years back to three. They also described how the bill would eliminate the current cap on compensation over base, which mainly affects overtime, and noted that the actuarial cost of the AFC-related changes is interrelated rather than easily broken out by feature. A separate discussion covered the special duty pay limitation, which currently applies to Tier A and would be removed under the governor’s bill for both Tier A and Tier B members after their vested buy date. Staff said the actuary estimated that removing the special duty limitation would increase costs by about $13.9 million. Members also asked about the practical difference between overtime and special duty, with staff explaining that special duty generally involves work for a private third party, often police detail work, while overtime depends more on staffing and scheduling. The committee also reviewed the normal retirement age changes for Tier B and the possibility that some members would need to work longer to reach the new vested buy date. Members raised concerns about an ambiguity in the bill that could allow already-retired Tier B members to return to work, then re-retire and claim the higher benefits, or allow vested deferred members to stop working and wait for the new vested buy date. Staff said the governor’s office did not intend to allow that result and requested clarifying language, noting that the bill as drafted does not expressly prohibit it. The committee also discussed part-time and seasonal work after retirement, with staff explaining that such work generally does not restore membership unless the person takes a full-time position requiring enrollment. Finally, the committee reviewed the maximum benefit provisions and noted that HB 2 in the current year does not change the maximum benefit date or include the 1.5% annual escalator that had been part of the 2023 proposal, making the current bill more costly than the earlier version.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh we've allowed any fiscal year 27.
• We've just allowed Ohei to in our bill.
• language talks about the maximum language talks about the maximum recognized<00:15:18.079> negative
• <00:15:24.880> it like you're saying you want to allow it like you're saying you want to allow
• Would this allow extra money to deficit.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• for any potentially recovery of allow for any potentially recovery of cost<00:23:15.279> for<
• Raising the maximum cap for the SBC would allow the department, in our opinion, flexibility to respond
• Raising the maximum cap for the SBC would allow the department, in our opinion, flexibility to respond
• Raising the maximum cap for the SBC would allow the department, in our opinion, flexibility to respond
• Raising the maximum cap for the SBC would allow the department, in our opinion, flexibility to respond

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So that carries a healthy amount of contingency in that estimated cost.
• Costs have gone up significantly, certainly across the country.
• I guess the question will be: Is there a guaranteed maximum on these contracts?
• He'd maximum price for the project. Okay. Thank you, sir. Is there any other questions?
• If we're looking at just the lowest cost, we may be losing money here.

Summary: The review subcommittee met to consider a supplemental agenda, methods of finance, an alternative delivery project, discretionary grants, and a large slate of construction, out-of-state, and in-state contracts. The supplemental item was a $2.6 million out-of-state contract with Tyler Technologies for a mobile app that would let citizens access state services through a single sign-on, initially for DFA vehicle and licensing services, with possible expansion to other agencies. Members also reviewed five methods of finance, including University of Arkansas projects for roof and cooling tower replacements, a new $100 million academic classroom building at U of A Fayetteville, a police department renovation at UA Fort Smith, and a boiler/chiller replacement at Hope-Texarkana. Questions focused on project timing, why some items were being reviewed after work had begun, and the high estimated cost of the Fayetteville classroom building; DFA explained that projects under $250,000 are not reviewed and that the larger project was still in design and would later seek a guaranteed maximum price. The committee also reviewed two DHS discretionary grants: one for targeted youth advocacy in southwest Arkansas and another adding $582,000 for family-centered treatment training and implementation. In the services contract section, members discussed construction-related contracts, including an ASMSA electrical scope increase tied to three-phase power requirements and the U of A Fayetteville architect contract for the classroom building. Out-of-state contracts included major items such as ACT Education’s $17 million amendment to provide required pre-ACT testing for 9th and 10th graders, a $12.5 million DFA contract for rural health transformation grant management, DHS’s $16.5 million EBT services contract with updated chip-card and fraud-prevention features, and ADH’s special procurement for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey. The committee also reviewed U of A system consulting contracts for financial advisory and sponsorship strategy work, with university officials saying the outside expertise was needed for specialized planning and revenue-generation efforts. In-state contracts covered corrections reentry services, nursing board investigations, foster care and child welfare services, DHS office janitorial work, emergency management radio system expansion, veterans’ home nursing staffing, and UAMS grants consulting. A lengthy exchange centered on the Department of Corrections’ reentry housing contract, with members pressing officials about vacant beds and urging fuller use of the program, while corrections staff said placements depend on screening and eligibility. Another discussion addressed the balance between out-of-state and in-state contracting, with a member noting the large dollar volume going to out-of-state vendors and asking whether Arkansas vendors receive any preference; State Procurement said current law does not allow an in-state preference. The committee approved the supplemental agenda, the methods of finance, the alternative delivery project, the discretionary grants, and the contract lists, and then received routine reports and an emergency action report before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• At great cost, financial and moral cost to our state. I'm asking you to really reconsider this.
• of housing and the cost of groceries.
• rates, and health care costs.
• rates, and health care costs.
• rates, and health care costs.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, a moment of silence for the Parkland shooting victims, the Pledge of Allegiance, and adoption of the special order report for the day. The chamber then moved into a special-order agenda focused almost entirely on immigration-related measures, beginning with Senate Memorial 6C urging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to provide guidance and training for 287(g) agreements. The memorial was adopted 85-27 after brief debate, with supporters arguing Florida should help maximize federal immigration enforcement and opponents saying Congress, not the state, should fix immigration policy. The House next took up Senate Bill 4C, an immigration bill creating new state offenses for illegal entry and reentry by adult unauthorized aliens and requiring a mandatory death sentence for an unauthorized alien convicted of a capital felony. Members debated constitutional concerns, due process, racial profiling, fiscal impacts, and whether the bill intruded on federal immigration authority. Several amendments were offered and defeated, including proposals to extend protections to Venezuelans with TPS, to remove the mandatory death penalty, to protect certain long-term immigrant workers and teachers, to expand exemptions for Haitians and humanitarian parole recipients, and to create a task force on best practices for immigration enforcement in schools and other sensitive locations. A final amendment to strip the bill as unconstitutional was also rejected. The bill then passed 85-29. The final measure discussed was Senate Bill 2C, which creates a State Board of Immigration Enforcement led by the Governor and Cabinet, establishes grants and incentive bonuses for local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities, repeals the fee waiver for undocumented students beginning July 1, 2025, and appropriates more than $300 million for immigration enforcement. The sponsor described it as a broad enforcement package, while questions from members focused on the impact on current students who receive in-state tuition and whether the bill would remove incentives for those already enrolled. The transcript ends during that exchange, before final action on SB 2C is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• We set the maximum rate for tier one and the max and the maximum rate for tier two is set in law that's
• That's not going to be double your cost.
• We're just breaking out cost drivers that affect total cost. of the program or total entitlement in the
• And cost drivers that primarily drive state cost.
• The TRS board actually adopts premiums each year, which are designed to cover the cost. costs of the

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My concern is, if you allow me, Mr.
• At no cost of their own.
• You know how much it costs?
• These things all cost us a lot every day.
• These things all cost us a lot every day.

Summary: The Senate opened with a prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the reading of an amended joint proclamation expanding the Legislature’s immigration agenda. The proclamation added items calling for financial penalties for government officials, enhanced criminal penalties for offenses committed by illegal aliens, and programs and appropriations to support law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration law. The chamber then took up the special order calendar, beginning with Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2B, the immigration bill. Most of the meeting was devoted to debate and questions on the strike-all amendment to SB 2B. Sponsor Senator Gruters described the bill as a broad immigration enforcement package aligned with President Trump’s agenda. He said it would require greater cooperation with federal immigration authorities, strengthen participation in the 287(g) program, create a chief immigration officer and council, authorize financial penalties for noncompliance, provide bonuses for officers assisting ICE, and direct information-sharing with federal agencies. He also said the bill would bar DHSMV from issuing licenses or ID cards to unauthorized aliens and would end in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students. Senators Polsky, Pizzo, Smith, Jones, Berman, Osgood, and others questioned the scope of the bill, whether it would affect schools, churches, cities, nonprofits, and green-card holders, and how the 287(g) provisions would work in practice. Gruters repeatedly said the operational focus was on jails and detention facilities, not street-level enforcement. A major point of controversy was the bill’s proposed mandatory death penalty for unauthorized aliens convicted of certain capital offenses. Senator Fine said the covered crimes were the most serious capital felonies, including murder, child sexual battery, destructive-device offenses causing death, and certain trafficking offenses, and argued the provision was intended to withstand constitutional challenge. Senator Pizzo raised Eighth Amendment concerns and questioned whether the bill could mandate death sentences. The tuition waiver provisions also drew extended debate: Fine said the state would save about $41 million by ending discounted tuition for undocumented students, while Democrats argued the savings would not return to general revenue and that the policy would harm students who are already enrolled. Fine and Gruters said green-card holders would not be affected and that the bill targeted only students in the country illegally. The discussion also covered appropriations and implementation. Senator Smith asked about the bill’s large funding levels, and Fine broke down the spending as including $375 million for the chief immigration officer, $100 million in grants to local law enforcement, $29 million for the new Office of State Immigration Enforcement, and $10 million for an unauthorized-alien transport program. Gruters said the funds would reimburse local governments and help address staffing shortages, while critics questioned the lack of benchmarks and the fiscal impact. No final vote or disposition on the bill appears in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• The, the substitute, the, the uh the expected cost is, is what? a billion, half a billion?
• However, actual cost per student is $128 annually to fully implement those mandates.
• Uh, the school safety allotment does allow for expenditures.
• The maximum would be 183, but for that 8 year be 215,000 and with longevity it'd be 225,000.
• Thank you for allowing me to speak today.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:03.599> the homicides uh the bill also allows the homicides uh the bill also allows
• The bill allows that.
• The bill allows that.
• 2022 at the federal level this allows 2022 at the federal level this allows Kentucky<00:08:56.399
• <00:24:34.600> that's you see is the maximum amount that's you see is the maximum amount that's

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate VMAP Committee met with a quorum and heard three bills. Senate Bill 144, sponsored by Senator Danny Carroll, would require destruction of firearms used in homicides and allow destruction of certain defaced, hazardous, unsafe, or owner-requested firearms, while prohibiting agencies from intentionally damaging firearms before transfer and requiring written agency policies. Senator Tichenor asked about lost auction revenue; KSP said it could not track homicide weapons separately, that auctions bring in about $1.2 million annually, and that most proceeds support Kentucky Homeland Security. Senators Boswell and others said they generally oppose destroying firearms but supported moving the bill forward; the bill passed favorably with no nays. House Bill 191, sponsored by Representative Aaron Thompson and presented with state and veterans’ officials, would align Kentucky law with federal changes to allow additional burials in state veteran cemeteries for certain National Guard and Reserve veterans, their spouses, and dependents who were not previously eligible. Testimony explained the bill would cover veterans who served in reserve components without Title 10 activation, including those who assisted during floods, fires, and tornadoes, and clarified eligibility rules for spouses and children. Senators asked about minimum service and dependent eligibility, and the committee passed the bill favorably and unanimously. Senate Bill 198, sponsored by Senator David Yates, addressed protection of veterans’ benefits by regulating third-party claims consultants. The committee adopted a substitute adding definitions and accreditation-related provisions, and Yates said the bill was intended to curb abusive fee practices and direct penalties to the special license plate fund for veterans. He explained the bill’s fee limits, including a cap tied to three times the monthly increase in benefits and an overall ceiling, while senators questioned whether the cap might discourage good actors and how the dollar limits would work. A veteran witness, Bob Casher, supported the bill and urged more public information on free claims assistance; the committee held further action while allowing guest comments, and the discussion focused on balancing consumer protection with access to legitimate consultants.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next on cost share.
• So in the Southwest Pipeline, for example, we have kind of a goal for a maximum cost hookup per user.
• the cost of that system?
• It wouldn't be a landowner cost.
• Project costs going forward: construction costs total about $30 million.

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to receive interim status updates on several water-related studies and Department of Water Resources projects. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and then heard updates on the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study. Staff reported that the committee had already received the testimony contemplated in the study plans, including input from state agencies, local governments, and out-of-state entities, and that any further action would be at the committee’s discretion. The Department of Water Resources then provided project and budget updates on NAWS and the Southwest Pipeline Project. Reese reported NAWS is expected to serve about 81,000 users, with a total projected cost of about $571 million and about $96 million remaining, while the Southwest Pipeline Project is estimated at $1.06 billion total with about $409 million remaining. Members asked about funding sources, capacity needs, and whether current and future construction is being designed for increased demand; department staff said current work is designed for ultimate capacity, but some future components may need redesign based on new requests. The committee also discussed local cost shares, Minot’s role in NAWS funding, and whether the system is adequate for peak demand. A major portion of the meeting focused on the department’s cash management, carryover, and long-term water funding outlook. The department said Resources Trust Fund revenues are tied to oil extraction taxes and are affected by stripper well exemptions and future oil price declines. Members expressed concern about large carryover balances and whether the state is obligating more money than can realistically be spent in a biennium. The department reported about $340.6 million in remaining carryover and said it is trying to reduce that through a two-tier pre-construction/construction process and closer project vetting. The department also summarized the Deloitte studies on regional governance and finance and on cost-share policy. Stakeholders generally favored keeping the current governance structures for NAWS and Southwest with improvements, while Red River stakeholders leaned toward a different option; the department said it will bring an implementation plan back in September. On cost share, Deloitte’s recommendations would reduce some percentages, prioritize projects differently, and use other measures to close a projected long-term funding gap. Members debated affordability, local burden, deferred maintenance, and whether statutory changes may be needed to allow the commission more flexibility in prioritizing and funding projects. No formal votes or final actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving the updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• cost will jump to $435 per pupil.
• > jump<00:35:35.560> to 2% and the base cost will jump to 2% and the base cost will jump
• the um the um um The increased costs the um the um um The increased costs associated<00:39:50.960
• education so the cost of an adequate education so the cost of an adequate<02:17:40.000> education
• , the maximum it could cost would be about $1 million in the second year when we open up to universal

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The executive session focused primarily on HB 563, which revises the school funding formula, especially the adequate education grant amounts for special education students and the treatment of fiscal capacity disparity aid. Representative Ladd moved OTPA on Amendment 06508, explaining that FY 26 would largely hold the current formula steady, while FY 27 would increase several per-pupil amounts, including base cost, free and reduced-price meals, English language learner aid, and special education differentiated aid. He said the special education change was based on estimated case loads across disability categories and that the amendment also reinstates fiscal capacity disparity aid, using a formula intended to better assist property-poor communities. Several members supported the amendment as a step in the right direction, saying it better recognizes special education costs and separates property wealth from low-income student counts. Others raised concerns about the lack of time and the absence of a printed spreadsheet showing how the fiscal capacity disparity aid would affect each town. In response, sponsors said the spreadsheet existed, that the LBA had copies, and that the amendment would help about 40 target towns, while Manchester would be the main community receiving less under the new formula because of prior shifts in the extraordinary needs grant. Discussion also covered the broader impact of the bill, with members noting that about 200 of the state’s 245 cities and towns would see an increase and 45 a decrease under the proposed FY 27 changes. Supporters argued the bill was a compromise given limited revenues and that it should move forward so it can be considered by the full House and then Finance. No final vote on the amendment or bill was taken in the portion provided, and the chair indicated the committee was still deciding whether it had enough information to proceed.