Transcript Highlights:

• Those are the transfers to HHS for the two transfer laws.
• </c><01:13:22.679><c> the</c> 24 is what we actually transferred the 24 is what we actually transferred
• That would reduce the transfer to HHS and would increase the transfer to the general fund. lean so good
• </c><01:19:30.120><c> to</c> HHS and would increase the transfer to HHS and would increase the transfer
• </c><01:19:51.679><c> out</c> simply to take those two transfers out simply to take those two transfers

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:

• Um, the transfer among schools within a district.
• Um the transfer among schools within a Um the transfer among schools within a district.<00:11:33.120>
• </c> already have an interdistrict transfer already have an interdistrict transfer policy<00:11:38.560
• </c> transferring to another school. transferring to another school.
• Yeah, I had, um, let's see. pupils to another district or transfer pupils to another district or transfer

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference on HB 751 reviewed amendment 2026-1904H page by page, focusing on open enrollment rules, capacity definitions, statewide enrollment limits, denial criteria, transportation, and funding. Members discussed clarifying that districts may set capacity at zero if they truly have no room, creating a statewide enrollment cap of 500 that can increase by 25% if it reaches 90% utilization, and exempting seats already used by open enrollment students before October 1, 2026. They also discussed how the Department of Education would allocate seats through rulemaking, while local districts would still set capacity, with grandfathered seats preserved where districts already allow open enrollment. A substantial portion of the meeting centered on when districts may deny open enrollment applications. The amendment would allow denials for reasons such as chronic absenteeism or disciplinary history, while requiring districts to consider whether those issues are tied to disability, McKinney-Vento status, foster care, or bullying. Members emphasized that such factors are to be considered, not used as the sole basis for rejection, and noted that the bill separately prohibits receiving schools from accepting or rejecting applicants based on pupil needs, special education needs, disability, aptitude, or athletic achievement. There was also discussion of whether interdistrict transfers should count toward open enrollment capacity, with a suggestion that a carve-out may be needed. The committee also reviewed provisions on program-specific capacity, continuous enrollment, and transportation. It was explained that capacity can apply to a school, grade, program, or class, including CTE programs, and that students may be denied if a specific program is full or if they do not meet prerequisites. The group clarified that open enrollment pupils would maintain continuous enrollment without reapplying, though there was concern about how that would work if district capacity changes over time. Transportation would generally be the parent’s responsibility unless required by an IEP or 504 plan, though students may use an existing bus route if seats are available and the receiving district allows it. On funding, the committee noted that the amendment changes the earlier HB 751 approach and instead ties open enrollment funding to base adequacy, differentiated aid, and an additional grant modeled on charter school funding, with dates removed at the department’s request. Members also raised concerns about how open enrollment would interact with existing tuition agreements and whether districts could use the new pathway to alter or pressure those arrangements. Department staff said districts would still be required to maintain a school of record and provide an adequate education free of charge outside the open enrollment program, and that if open enrollment enrollment became unusually large relative to district adequacy enrollment, the issue could be brought to the state board. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The department has been working with DNR to transfer lands.
• I'm not sure as to the speed of the transfer.
• I am not actively involved in the transfer of lands.
• </c><00:53:06.480><c> those</c> been Cooperative in transferring those been Cooperative in transferring
• </c> forth what's the hold up on the transfer forth what's the hold up on the transfer with<00:54:52.119

Committee: Senate Public Safety and Military Affairs

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Senate committee hearing considered HB 472 HD1 on digital identification and HB 1097 HD1 on public housing evictions, followed by HB 1325 HD3 on housing redevelopment and tenant relocation rights. HB 472 would require digital IDs to be accepted under certain conditions and allow law enforcement to use them as proof of identity; the committee heard limited testimony, then adopted a recommendation to pass with amendments, including changing “shall” to “may” and adding effective and defective dates. HB 1097 would shorten the storage period for unclaimed personal effects after a public housing eviction; the Hawaii Public Housing Authority supported the bill, while some members raised concerns about the impact on displaced families. The committee moved the bill forward with discussion of the agency’s eviction process, waitlist size, and the need to free units sooner for other applicants. HB 1325 HD3 drew extensive testimony and discussion. The bill would require developers of certain HHFDC affordable housing projects to provide displaced tenants with a right of first refusal for a comparable unit or relocation assistance, along with information, tracking, and enforcement provisions. HHFDC supported the measure but suggested amendments to require both relocation assistance and a right of first refusal, without requiring the same rent as the prior unit. Legal aid, housing advocates, community organizations, and many tenants testified in strong support, emphasizing displacement during public housing redevelopment, inadequate communication, accessibility problems, and the need for enforceable rights to return. Several tenants described confusing notices, unsuitable replacement units, and hardship for elders, disabled residents, and children. The discussion also highlighted concerns about developer compliance and the need for state-level enforcement. No final vote on HB 1325 was shown in the transcript excerpt, but the hearing included substantial questioning of the housing authority and testimony from affected residents. The committee also discussed the broader redevelopment context, including large-scale public housing demolition and replacement plans, and the potential consequences for families if relocation and return rights are not clearly enforced.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are several um transfers tails.
• </c> the due to the reduction of the transfer the due to the reduction of the transfer to<00:10:40.480
• Then both the inclusive higher education transfer of $1.5 million and the North Star Promise transfer
• So, in terms of total transfers on line 71, you'll see transfers out. You'll see a total there.
• So, of all these transfers to special revenue funds, have they always been transfers to special revenue

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 2312 and first adopted the DE1 amendment, after which the amended bill was discussed. Nonpartisan fiscal staff walked through the spreadsheet and explained the bill’s higher education budget changes, including increases for state grants and tribal college assistance, unchanged funding for several existing programs, and reductions or eliminations for items such as state work study, summer academic enrichment, student loan counseling, concurrent enrollment, and the student parent support initiative. Staff also noted transfers to special revenue funds, the cancellation and reappropriation of ALS research funding, and a new licensing/registration revenue item. The committee was told the bill met the committee’s zero target overall, with a net general fund change of zero relative to the February forecast, while also adding some non-general fund expenditures for program licensing and registration. Members asked several questions about the transfers and specific line items, including whether any new special revenue accounts were being created, the foster care wraparound services line, and the treatment of the University of Minnesota and Centric Care partnership. Staff explained that the transfers generally did not create new accounts, that some items were not in the base, and that the U of M/Centric Care partnership was a one-time appropriation in the prior bill but was now being built into the base at a different amount. The University of Minnesota section also included new or continued funding for medical school development, health training restoration, emergency assistance grants, ALS research, and a weather resiliency program, while the Mayo Foundation section eliminated funding for Mayo Medical School and the Mayo family medicine residency program. The policy portion of the DE1 was then introduced. It included a maximum tuition and fee amount for state grants, direct appropriation of emergency assistance grants to Minnesota State, a juvenile justice appropriation for Metropolitan State University, and the ALS research reappropriation to the University of Minnesota. It also contained repealers for unfunded programs, including a delayed repealer for the student parent support initiative. In the higher education policy article, the bill would allow Minnesota State to offer applied doctoral degrees in cybersecurity, make technical changes to hunger-free campus and sexual misconduct procedures, extend pregnant and parenting student protections to private institutions, allow OHE to retain up to 10% of certain competitive grants for administration, consolidate reports, change the state grant formula so negative FAFSA contributions count as zero, and reduce the state grant lifetime credit cap from 180 to 120 credits. The Northstar Promise provisions would limit tuition and fees to resident rates and require MnState, and request the University of Minnesota, to ensure eligible students receive the benefit.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Moving down to line 50, there is a transfer from the general fund of $12 million into the Victims
• Uh, that is in 27, and a follow-up transfer of $148,000 in fiscal year 28.
• , 50,<00:03:29.840><c> there</c><00:03:30.000><c> is</c><00:03:30.120><c> a</c><00:03:30.200><c> transfer
• from the general 50, there is a transfer from the general fund<00:03:31.760><c> of</c><00:03:31.959>
• </c> that is in 27, and a follow-up transfer that is in 27, and a follow-up transfer of<00:03:42.160>

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Conference Committee on Senate File 3432 met on May 15, 2026, and first approved a motion to continue meeting past midnight. Members then reviewed the public safety and judiciary budget agreement, including funding for non-fatal shooting clearance grants, a domestic violence task force, services for released adults and juveniles, trafficking prevention for youth, corrections bed impacts from assault and theft-related provisions, increased Philando Castile training reimbursements, and transfers into the Victims of Crime Account. The committee also noted that some items were removed because they had already passed as stand-alone bills, including impersonation of a peace officer and the grooming penalty, and that the first responder uniform ID task force would not be funded in this bill. Policy provisions discussed for the public safety side included a domestic violence response task force, trafficking and sexual exploitation prevention grants, juvenile re-entry services, the Minnesota clearance grant program, the Philando Castile Memorial Training Fund, confidentiality for victim statements to the Clemency Review Commission, the fourth-degree assault amendment for hospital or clinic security guards, the enhanced penalty for theft from a vulnerable adult, child sexual abuse material venue and evidence provisions, and revised language on prediction markets and the Attorney General’s administrative subpoena authority. The chair also said the committee had to make late fixes to some stakeholder-requested changes and expressed frustration about the timing. The committee then reviewed the safety and security budget agreement, which included funding for judicial security, a judicial security unit, security threat response, safe and secure courthouse grants, appeals court and district court security, state patrol deficiency funding, capital security screening and enhancements, legislative protective services, BCA threat assessment and investigation, a security services task force, legislative security reimbursements, and security for constitutional officers. The agreement also included technical court reallocation adjustments and DNR carry-forward authority for certain non-budgeted public safety costs incurred in 2026. After no public testimony was offered, the committee adopted both the public safety budget agreement and the safety and security budget agreement, directed non-partisan staff to prepare the conference committee report with technical and conforming changes, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We can just or transfer it to the BFA.
• c> land,</c> So, in transferring the land, So, in transferring the land, the<00:23:07.200><c> state</
• Any transfer of governor and council.
• </c> with opportunities for us to transfer with opportunities for us to transfer property<00:47:38.160
• </c><01:48:28.480><c> of</c> that this will allow the transfer of that this will allow the transfer of

Committee: House Executive Departments and Administration

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It may be freely transferred, assigned, licensed in whole or in part, and it does not expire immediately
• There are several ways in which a person may, in fact, and it may be transferred.
• occur based upon the agency record, or, lacking unanimous consent, the Superior Court finds that transfer
• The provisions of the LUPA that allow for transfer of judicial review of a land use decision would be
• Additionally, a party's withholding of consent to transfer for direct appeal would be inadmissible as

Committee: House Civil Rights & Judiciary

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But with this file transfer, it could take an additional one to two business days for it to actually
• But with this file transfer, it could take an additional one to two business days for it to actually
• But with this file transfer, it could take an additional one to two business days for it to actually
• But with this file transfer, it could take an additional one to two business days for it to actually
• But with this file transfer, it could take an additional one to two business days for it to actually

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The JLCAR meeting opened with approval of the prior minutes and the consent calendar, after one Fish and Game item was pulled from consent for separate discussion. The committee then reordered the regular calendar and postponed an HHS item at the agency’s request because work on the proposal was still ongoing and the sponsoring representative was absent. The committee next considered OPLC item 2547, dealing with amendments to licensure and discipline forms for regulated professions. Members raised concerns that the form appeared geared toward health professions and that boards were not sufficiently involved in the process. OPLC responded that the form was being moved toward a dynamic online format with logic to collapse irrelevant questions, and that the agency was trying to make the application more user-friendly. The committee approved the item. DNCR item 2551, concerning volunteer/adopt-a-park program rules, was approved after the agency acknowledged it had been operating the program and using forms before formal rules were adopted, and said it was now correcting that issue. Fish and Game item 2570, on electronic OHRV and snowmobile registration applications, drew discussion over processing times. The committee chair argued for consistency with the five-day mail-in processing period, while Fish and Game said it had concerns about file-transfer delays and workload and preferred 10 days. The committee ultimately approved the proposal with an oral amendment and conditional approval. In other business, staff described a broader move to an online agency portal for submitting rulemaking documents, replacing email submissions. Members supported the change as a modernization effort and noted it would also make it easier to see which rules are nearing expiration. The committee approved the manual change, with implementation planned for early August after agency training.

Transcript Highlights:

• While these funds are restricted, statute does allow for the transfer of funds between categoricals.
• This would include transfers to other categorical funds and spending on those needs.
• And this is where you see transfers to the other three categoricals.
• My question is kind of going back to the ALE and the categorical fund transfers.
• Have we looked at that to see if those transfers have actually improved the outcomes?

Summary: The committee first approved the March 9 and 10 minutes, then heard a presentation from the Arkansas Excellence in Teaching Fellowship Program featuring three third-grade teachers from Poyen, Drew Central, and Cabot, along with Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva. The teachers described the fellowship as a year-long collaboration among 23 merit-pay recipients from across the state, focused on sharing classroom strategies, data use, and professional support. Members asked about teacher experience, how the fellowship information is shared locally, the role of merit pay, and how teachers are addressing third-grade reading and retention concerns under the ATLAS assessment system. The teachers emphasized early intervention, relationships with students, small-group instruction, progress monitoring, and communication with families; they also described community supports such as churches, food backpacks, and local donations. Several members raised broader questions about poverty, trauma, social services, DHS involvement, and whether similar professional learning should be expanded to more teachers. Secretary Oliva said the fellowship is a small subset of a larger merit-pay program, that participation was voluntary, and that the state is working to improve literacy supports, clarity, and alignment across grades. He also said ATLAS results are now available to schools and families much faster than in the past, often within 24 to 72 hours, and that the state is using the data to identify at-risk students earlier and support intervention before retention decisions are made. The committee then moved to the adequacy/resource allocation presentation from the Bureau of Legislative Research. Staff explained that the report is part of the statutory adequacy review and focuses on state funding sources beyond foundation aid, including categorical and supplemental funds. They noted that districts and charters spent more than $7 billion in the 2025 school year, with roughly 49% from foundation funding and 51% from other sources over the last three years. The presentation outlined the four categorical funds—Alternative Learning Environment, English Learners, Enhanced Student Achievement, and Professional Development—describing their restricted uses, student-based funding formulas, and the ability of districts to transfer some money among categoricals while keeping it within allowable purposes. Staff said categorical funds account for about 4% of total spending, or less than $300 million, and reviewed superintendent feedback on whether those funds met district needs, with responses varying by category and district.

Transcript Highlights:

• My question is kind of going back to the ALE and the categorical fund transfers.
• Those transfers have actually improved the outcomes?
• We can pull which districts are transferring those funds, absolutely.
• Student growth funding cannot be transferred out of the student growth fund.
• Previously, school choice was capped at 3% of students transferring out.

Summary: The committee approved the March 9 and 10 minutes and then heard a presentation from the Arkansas Department of Education on the Arkansas Excellence in Teaching Fellowship, featuring three third-grade teachers from Cabot, Poyen, and Drew Central who are also teacher merit pay recipients. The teachers described the fellowship as a year-long Zoom-based collaboration with about 23 educators statewide, focused on sharing classroom strategies, data use, and professional support. Members asked about the teachers’ experience, how they share what they learn with their districts, the range of grades represented in the fellowship, and the relationship between the fellowship and merit pay. The teachers emphasized building relationships with students, using data to drive instruction, early intervention, and collaboration across grade levels, while the secretary said the program is intended to identify and elevate high-performing teachers and spread their practices. A major portion of the discussion focused on third-grade reading, retention, and the new ATLAS testing system. Teachers and the secretary said students are screened and progress monitored throughout the year, families are notified early if students are at risk, and schools are using interventions, tutoring, and individualized reading plans. They said ATLAS results are now available much faster than in the past, often within 24 hours or a few days, allowing teachers and parents to respond quickly. Members asked about the impact of poverty, trauma, foster care, DHS involvement, IEPs, and critical shortage areas; teachers said relationship-building, small-group instruction, and coordination with counselors and special education staff are key. The secretary said the fellowship is a small subset of a broader merit pay program, that participation was voluntary, and that the state is trying to build a coherent system with literacy coaches, high-impact tutoring, and clearer standards rather than teaching to the test. Members also discussed broader policy issues, including the need for more positive public messaging about public education, teacher input in decision-making, and support for early childhood education. Several legislators asked whether the state should expand funding for early learning and whether more literacy or academic coaches are needed in districts that improve and then lose eligibility for state support. The secretary said the state has committed literacy coaches to D and F schools and is still working through how to sustain support as schools improve. He also said the administration would look at data and return on investment before supporting additional funding, and he encouraged legislators to help recruit eligible teachers into future fellowship cohorts. After the teacher panel concluded, the committee moved on to the adequacy resource allocation study, where Bureau of Legislative Research staff began a presentation on state and local education funding sources, categorical funds, and district spending patterns.

Transcript Highlights:

• to hold a liquor license as an asset has changed over the last couple of years, the way they're transferred
• two years ago, changed the way, you might recall this legislation, the way liquor licenses are transferred
• And that's why we're in a funding jam now in ABC, because we would get 10% of those transfer fees would
• So with liquor license transfers, ABC, the state would receive 10% of that transfer fee.
• So with liquor license transfers, ABC, the state would receive a 10% of that transfer fee.

Committee: House State Affairs

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, this is a real estate excise tax exemption for transfers of property used as housing for persons
• The parent or guardian making the transfer receives the exemption so long as certain conditions are met
• Those conditions include that the adult dependent of the person making the transfer may continue to live
• might be narrow and provide a disincentive to make this transfer.
• Are there any questions on the real estate excise tax exemption for these types of transfers?

Committee: Joint Citizen Commission for Performance Measurement of Tax Preferences

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These are appropriation and/or fund transfer requests.
• Special language allows transfers up to twice a year after approval by the state CFO and ALC.
• Chair, those are all the transfer requests. Chair: All right, thank you.
• There are four agencies that show a total of $28 million in transfers from the Performance Fund.
• The transfers are also related to pay plan implementation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Committee: All ALC-PEER

Summary: The committee considered several appropriation and transfer requests, beginning with a $273,000 temporary appropriation for the Department of Labor and Licensing to cover administrative costs for its enterprise licensing platform, funded by license and application fees. It then reviewed two large Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act requests: $280 million for the Department of Transportation for the final quarter of the fiscal year, and $195 million for the State Broadband Office to support the Arkansas BEAD broadband grant program, including an extra help position and grants to internet service providers. The broadband item drew extensive questions about awardees, contract amendments, accountability, build-out timelines, backup plans if providers default, the definition of broadband serviceable locations, and the cost per location. The State Broadband Director said no providers had requested amendments, the program would use milestone-based disbursements and a four-year build-out period, and the first tranche would serve 51,566 homes and businesses with $126.1 million in grants. Both Section B and Section C items were approved. In Section D, the committee approved a $458,000 transfer within the Department of Correction from the female work release program to the Tucker Unit water treatment plant, a $25 million transfer within the Department of Education to cover declining enrollment, teacher incentive, school recognition, and Easter Seals funding, and a $229,000 transfer for the Department of Shared Administrative Services to support two project management office positions. The education transfer prompted questions about how declining enrollment funding is calculated, how many districts receive it, and how long districts can continue to receive it; agency staff said 152 districts were on the preliminary list and the formula is based on the prior two-year average ADM compared with the previous year. The committee also gave favorable advice on a proposed $4.7 million loan for the Office of State Technology to implement ServiceNow and related IT modernization tools; agency officials said the loan would be repaid through cost recovery rates over five years and would replace an existing loan that is ending, with expected savings from consolidating applications but no precise savings estimate yet. The committee then reviewed cash fund and federal grant requests, including $200,000 for wage and hour claimant payments, $15 million for unclaimed property claims, $8,000 for a heritage program grant, and $1.1 million for a College and Career Coaches grant to expand services in rural districts. It also reviewed pay plan and budget manual items without objection. The most extensive report discussion focused on the Medicaid trust fund, where DHS and DFA officials said the balance has been declining and that the state may need to add capital back into the fund. Senators and representatives asked about the current balance, the projected year-end level, the role of the $100 million set-aside, the impact of outstanding Medicaid rules from the prior session, and whether future federal funding could help reduce long-term Medicaid costs. Officials said they are still working through more than 10 outstanding rules with CMS and do not yet have a final price tag for those changes. The meeting ended after the reports were reviewed and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are the various cash transfers that were acted on by this body earlier this week and last week.
• You can see the impact of that is reducing the total amount of cash transfers to 170. of that is reducing
• the total amount of cash transfers to 178.2 million.
• have a $175 million impact to the revenue line there, and then on line 15 there's one of the cash transfers
• And then the other one was the Secretary of State, and that was just the single cash transfer instead

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The committee first received updates from LSO on the latest green sheet, including the revenue impact of House Bill 559, recent cash transfers, and the Idaho Budget Rescissions Act for FY 2026. Members then moved through a series of FY 2027 maintenance budgets, beginning with the legislative branch. The committee discussed the statewide 2% reduction layered on top of the governor’s recommendation, benefit-cost adjustments, and how those decisions were being built into the maintenance budgets. The legislative branch budget passed, followed by unanimous-consent adoption of related language. The committee next considered public safety, natural resources, health and human services, economic development, judicial branch, constitutional officers, and general government budgets. In each case, analysts explained how rescissions, ongoing base reductions, and statewide adjustments were incorporated. Several members objected to the across-the-board cuts, arguing they would reduce staffing or services in corrections, juvenile corrections, environmental quality, health and welfare, public defender services, crime victims compensation, tax administration, and treatment courts, while supporters said the committee needed a target and would revisit details in enhancement work groups. Most budget motions passed on divided votes and were forwarded with do-pass recommendations. The committee also adopted multiple sections of standard and nonstandard language, including cash transfers, reporting requirements, and agency-specific provisions. In Health and Human Services, members debated language requiring reporting on large acquisitions and transfers, and in Economic Development and General Government they adopted language affecting the State Public Defender, the Department of Insurance, and group insurance premiums. The meeting ended while the committee was still working through a disputed general government language item about funding employee health insurance premiums from reserve accounts, with members debating whether the language should reference specific reserve funds or broader reserve funding and whether the proposal was properly within JFAC’s scope.

Transcript Highlights:

• Monies in the account are from actions of the legislature to transfer funds into that account through
• Monies in the account are from actions of the legislature to transfer funds into that account through
• Is there enough money to transfer? Is that your question?
• Yeah, there's enough money in the Climate Commitment Act accounts to transfer the funding into this.
• There is sufficient funding in the Climate Commitment Act accounts to afford to transfer.

Bills: SB5893 , SB6229 , HB1376 , SGA9306

Committee: Senate Ways & Means

Keywords: forest health, wildfire reduction, appropriations, environmental policy, natural resource management, capital gains, taxation, small business, state revenue, investment, economic growth, tax prepayment, tax regulation, financial planning, economic policy, 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're told are of interest: one around this past wildfire season and also the trust land transfer program
• We were told by the chair that our wildfire work and the trust land transfer program were the topics,
• spot, but many of you have worked with Dwayne before and he's here to talk about the trust land transfer
• So yeah, talking about the trust land transfer, I know we presented a bill to make the trust land transfer
• So yeah, talking about the trust land transfer, I know we presented a bill to make the trust land transfer

Summary: The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held a work session with an update from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Commissioner Dave Upthe Grove outlined DNR’s size and scope, previewed agency-request legislation, and emphasized budget priorities. He said DNR will seek authority to sell ecosystem service credits, better use underutilized water rights with tribal consultation, add a tribal representative to the State Board of Natural Resources, make minor timber-sales efficiencies, and include wildland firefighters in the LEOFF pension system. He also urged restoration of wildfire prevention and preparedness funding, warning that reduced funding would mean fewer firefighters, less forest health work, and less support for rural fire districts. He noted DNR’s wildfire suppression costs are rising and argued prevention spending can reduce larger, more expensive fires. State Forester George Geisler followed with a detailed wildfire season review. He said Washington now responds to fires year-round and also assists other states, including Texas. He described DNR’s use of 31 aircraft, 691 firefighters, and corrections-based crews, and said the agency’s success rate for keeping fires under 10 acres improved slightly from 93.7% to 94.1%. He highlighted increased arson activity, especially around Spokane, and described the Crescent Road Fire as an example of early detection, rapid response, and the use of bulldozers, aircraft, and hand crews to contain a fire to 182 acres with no structure losses. Senator Saldan praised the emphasis on prevention and the use of bulldozers as cost-effective tools. Assistant deputy supervisor Dwayne Emmons then reviewed the trust land transfer program, which was codified in statute in 2023 after being funded through the capital budget for decades. He said more than 130,000 acres of underperforming trust land have been transferred since the 1990s to other public or tribal entities for more appropriate use, while DNR acquires replacement lands to keep the trust whole. He described the current application and ranking process, including tribal input, and said DNR is requesting funding for remaining parcels from the last round, including portions of Tract C, Babcock Bench, and Middle Fork Snoqualmie. In questions, Senator Wagoner raised concerns about DNR’s decision to remove some acres from timber harvest rotation and its impact on local revenue and mills; the commissioner responded that current five-year harvest plans provide short-term stability and that any changes would be explored through the Board of Natural Resources process, not through immediate reductions in supply. The committee then received a history briefing from staff member Jeff Olson on the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission and agency structure. He traced the evolution from early fish and game commissioners to the current commission-appointed director model adopted by voter-approved Referendum 45 in 1995. Olson explained the commission’s statutory duties, membership requirements, and how Washington compares with other states. Chair Chapman said he had no plans to hear a bill this session changing the commission’s makeup, but he expressed personal interest in exploring reforms, accountability, and possibly a future broader coalition or referendum process. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational only, and the chair adjourned the session with holiday and New Year’s wishes.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we have the remaining 11 minutes to talk about HB 561 relative to the transfer of state-owned real
• HB 561 relates to the transfer of state-owned real property to municipalities.
• requires the state of New Hampshire to seek approval from municipal legislative bodies prior to transferring
• to the transfer of stateowned real<00:05:10.479><c> property</c><00:05:10.880><c> to</c><00:05:11.280
• state-owned class one or transferring state-owned class one or two<00:05:22.560><c> highways.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Public Works and Highways Committee met in work session on HB 100 and HB 561, with brief housekeeping remarks at the start noting a new committee member, Representative Charlie Foot, and the departure of committee assistant Karen Davis. The chair also referenced upcoming discussion of the 10-year transportation plan and warned that the gas hearings and related funding changes would affect communities. HB 100 would prohibit the Department of Transportation from using state funds for planning, construction, operation, or management of new passenger rail projects. Members raised concerns that the bill needed more work and might have unintended effects on private and tourist rail operations, including the Cog Railway and other tourism railways. Several speakers said the issue should be studied further rather than acted on immediately. HB 561 concerns the transfer of state-owned real property, specifically requiring approval from municipal legislative bodies before transferring state-owned class one or two highways. Multiple members supported an interim study, saying the bill is tied to broader questions about the 10-year plan, road funding, municipal partnership, and the possibility that the state may eventually need to turn highways over to towns. Concerns were also raised about specific road situations such as Continental Boulevard and the need to understand current practices before making changes. In executive session, the committee voted 16-0, with two members absent, to send both HB 100 and HB 561 to interim study and place them on the consent calendar. The chair then explained that the bills would be revisited next fall and could later be debated on the House floor. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• “Governor’s budget includes 3%, and some one-time transfers to achieve that balance.
• So we're on the 2026 and 2027 General Fund cash transfers packet.
• Looking at the schedule for cash transfers, you would be taking up transferring money into the General
• Okay, don't make me page three in the packet for cash transfers.
• Chairman, moving on to page four in your packet, these would be transfers from the permanent...

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The committee first received a briefing on the updated “green sheet” budget materials and how to read the FY 2027 columns, along with a review of several bills with fiscal impacts, including HB 503, HB 556, HB 559, and HB 578. Staff explained where the documents could be found online and answered questions about the timing and size of the bills’ fiscal effects, including the tax conformity bill and county jail reimbursement changes. The main business was the 2026 Idaho Budget Rescissions Act. Members debated whether to adopt the governor’s 3% rescission, add an additional 1% reduction, or add an additional 2% reduction. Supporters of deeper cuts argued the state needed structural balance, a larger ending balance, and a response to revenue uncertainty and the pending tax conformity bill. Opponents said across-the-board cuts were too blunt, could harm Medicaid, education, public safety, and other programs, and should be handled agency by agency. The committee first rejected the 1% and 2% substitute motions, then approved the governor’s 3% rescission motion on a due-pass recommendation. The committee then approved a transfer of $22,366,500 from the Public School Income Fund to the General Fund, with the motion passing after a roll call vote. It next took up statewide decisions, starting with ongoing base reductions for selected state agencies. After debate over whether the reductions should be 3%, 4%, or 5%, the committee rejected the higher-cut substitutes and approved the governor’s 3% base reduction recommendation. Members emphasized that the work groups would still have flexibility to adjust individual agency budgets later. Finally, the committee considered personnel benefit cost increases for FY 2027. Staff explained the proposed health insurance and other variable-rate adjustments, and members debated whether to use the governor’s recommendation or a DOGE Working Group recommendation that slightly changed the funding mix and total. The governor’s recommendation was defended as more consistent with prior employee-benefit review practice, while supporters of the DOGE proposal said it would tighten legislative control over funding. The governor’s recommendation was ultimately rejected, and the committee moved on after the roll call votes on the competing motions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some, at this point, most programs that are going are set to transfer have transferred, although there
• ><c> there</c> transfer have transferred although there transfer have transferred although there are<
• c><00:03:35.560><c> the</c><00:03:35.720><c> programs</c> transfer of transfer of all the programs transfer
• </c> Early Learning grants were transferred Early Learning grants were transferred over<00:05:14.360>
• </c><00:49:12.960><c> of</c> parental consent or a transfer of parental consent or a transfer of permanent

Committee: House Children and Families Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I told them that a transfer of title is not going to clear a title defect.
• And there's a big difference between transferring by a quit claim deed and by fee simple transfer, correct
• Correct. ...quit claim deed and by fee simple transfer, correct?
• It has to do with how the land was transferred initially.
• Right now, we have approximately a $70 million transfer to the...

Committee: House Government Efficiency

Keywords: 959, house, all