Transcript Highlights:

• How do I pay for things? I don't have to work those extra hours.
• was mentioned about some sort of retention incentive for nursing faculty, some sort of differential pay
• You know, we pay for their certifications. We pay for all that in.
• I think incentive programs when it comes to that, then what we do, plus, the pay is much, much higher
• Thank pay the books. They don't to worry about working as many hours.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• She probably one of the jail because you don't have the money to pay that fi.
• If I'm going to award my teachers, the state of Florida's unique in how we pay our teachers, we leave
• But guess who had to pay for that special election? Why am I paying $5,000 for the unity recertify?
• Thank the union pay that they're the ones that want to be there.
• And it's like Christmas cause we're paying for our claims, you know, as we go.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to make it easier for folks to get access, and we need to make sure we're paying for it.
• And there was nothing looked at to see whether or not it was reasonable that one CBC is paying $400 a
• day for something and another one's paying $1,000 a day for something.
• $1,000 for group care, how many of them are in this field and how many are paying less than $700 or
• Are in this field and how many are paying less than $700 or whatever that may be, right?

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from Dr. Kelly O’Dare on first responder behavioral health access, peer support, and suicide prevention. She described UCF Restores, the Second Alarm Project, and related partnerships that provide culturally competent treatment, peer training, clinician education, disaster response support, and behavioral health navigation. She cited survey and state data showing significant rates of sleep problems, anxiety, depression, substance use, and suicide among Florida first responders, and said evidence-based treatment has helped many patients recover, including a reported 76% who no longer met PTSD diagnostic criteria after treatment. Senators asked about measuring outcomes, peer support standards, and whether the state should create more consistent statewide requirements; O’Dare said peer support training must be specialized, linked to higher levels of care, and supported by sustainable funding and statewide coordination. The committee also heard from a public commenter who supported the work and emphasized the need for adequate resources and peer support infrastructure. The committee then received a Department of Children and Families presentation from Casey Penn on the proposed funding methodology for community-based care lead agencies under HB 7089. Penn explained that the new model is intended to be actuarially based, reimbursement-oriented, and more transparent than prior funding approaches, using historical expenditures, standardized reporting, and two main tiers: Tier 1 for largely fixed administrative and operational costs, and Tier 2 for direct child-serving costs based on per-child-per-month blended rates. He said the model includes a 2% risk corridor for Tier 2, hold-harmless funding in the first year, and optional Tier 3 performance incentives, with an estimated additional state appropriation need after offsets. Senators raised concerns about prevention, historical inequities, reasonableness of costs, administrative overhead, blended state and federal funds, adoption subsidies, high-acuity placements, and disaster-related disruptions. Penn said some of those issues could be addressed in future iterations as the child welfare information system is modernized, and he agreed to provide written responses to committee questions. Representatives of the Florida Coalition for Children and CBCs responded that the model is a major improvement but urged additional safeguards, including an administrative cap, clearer separation of direct and indirect costs, and better treatment of federal and pass-through funds. They argued that the system already has oversight and that deficits reflect insufficient appropriations rather than excess spending, while also noting that higher-acuity children and regional differences can drive costs. No votes were taken on either topic, and the meeting ended with committee staff introductions and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• They pay $616,841.
• Our job is to pay.
• Our job is to pay.
• Our job is to pay.
• So, you're paying and you're that.

Bills: HF4493, HF3133, HF4595, HF4143, HF4142, HF3756, HF4289, HF1724, HF2291, HF4568, HF4547

Keywords: opioid use disorder, OUD, medication-assisted treatment, MAT, pharmacist prescribing, pharmacy practice, controlled substances, Schedule III, Schedule IV, Schedule V, DEA registration, Board of Pharmacy, substance use disorder, addiction treatment, buprenorphine, naltrexone, harm reduction, prescription authority, pharmacist intern, Minnesota pharmacy law

Transcript Highlights:

• We're not paying for health care service. We're paying for insurance products.
• :35.120><c> not</c><01:30:35.360><c> paying</c><01:30:35.679><c> for</c> paying for mostly we're not
• paying for paying for mostly we're not paying for health<01:30:36.320><c> care</c><01:30:36.560><c> service
• We're paying for health care service. We're paying for insurance<01:30:39.199><c> products.
• </c> through a capitated system that we pay through a capitated system that we pay the<01:30:54.159><

Bills: HF2435

Keywords: healthcare, dementia services, public health funding, opioid prevention, women's health, community health boards, mental health, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The state legislature does not appropriate any state general funds to help pay for our daily operations
• And who pays for that testing?
• </c><00:48:53.680><c> And</c><00:48:53.920><c> who</c><00:48:54.079><c> pays</c><00:48:54.319><c> for
• And who pays for that done on the land? And who pays for that testing? testing? testing?
• </c><01:42:55.520><c> some</c> egregious because they might pay some egregious because they might pay

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I remember something like if we just had three diverted into less expensive care, then that would pay
• </c><01:40:25.080><c> for</c> expensive care then that would pay for expensive care then that would pay
• Now let's go to 107, increasing Medicaid prescription co-pays to $4. This is on line 24 to 27.
• Medicaid prescription co-pays to Medicaid prescription co-pays to $4<01:41:20.800><c> this</c><01:41:
• people who are required to pay them, are we collecting?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first recessed briefly, then took up HB 570, the prescription drug affordability board (PDAB). The chair and several members discussed the House amendment to repeal the board, which removed the fiscal note. The main concern raised was that the PDAB had not yet produced a clear business case showing value for the taxpayer investment, despite several years of work and four annual reports. Supporters of the repeal said the board’s recent report was largely redundant and that the board should either demonstrate a strong return on investment or be shut down; others cautioned against discarding the program too quickly and urged more time to refine the mission and legislative language. No vote was taken, and the committee appeared to agree to retain the bill for further work, with the possibility of revisiting it in a formal executive session on Tuesday. Members also shifted into discussion of HB 2, beginning with Section 85 on opioid abatement trust fund dollars for shelter programs. Department of Health and Human Services officials explained that the provision would provide $10 million from the opioid abatement trust fund, replacing general funds in the governor’s budget, while also noting an additional $2.5 million prioritized needs request for shelter care that was already fully funded. Committee members asked about shelter bed capacity, job placement efforts, and the remaining balance in the opioid fund; DHHS said there are 934 contracted beds and that case management includes help with housing and employment. Officials also said the current proposed budget includes another $1 million later in HB 2 from the opioid fund. The committee then began discussion of Sections 86 through 87, which would preserve the department’s ability to transfer funds between personnel lines. DHHS said the provision is operationally critical and that losing it would make it extremely difficult to manage the department, though it would not have a direct fiscal impact. The next item introduced was Section 88, extending a suspension related to eligibility for services until July 1, 2027; DHHS indicated that if the suspension were not continued, it would likely increase expenditures for Community Mental Health Centers and potentially others. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's very ugly, but I want you to know that the university is already paying to rent that chain-link
• It's very ugly, but I want you to know that the university is already paying to rent that chain-link
• It's very ugly, but I want you to know that the university is already paying to rent that chain-link
• It's very ugly, but I want you to know that the university is already paying to rent that chain-link
• </c> context of the HQ if we could maybe pay context of the HQ if we could maybe pay for<01:30:13.480

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Hardworking American families shouldn't have to choose between paying for their medicine or paying for
• Hardworking American families shouldn't have to choose between paying for their medicine or paying for
• for their medicine or between paying for their medicine or paying<04:25:56.600><c> for</c><04:25:56.840
• People could pay their electric bills, fill their gas tanks, pay for child care, and more.
• :30:58.319><c> child</c> bills fill their gas tanks pay for child bills fill their gas tanks pay for

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Friday, January 3, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• paying car notes or putting their kids through school or taking care of their elderly parents or paying
• </c> these are not people who are paying these are not people who are paying student<00:33:18.679><c>
• Somebody's got to pay those people.
• Somebody's got to pay those people.
• Somebody's got to pay those people.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, March 5, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> program and save the businesses who pay program and save the businesses who pay unemployment<00:
• We really don't pay them adequately for, you know, if we were paying private people to do this kind of
• </c> their sick time and their vacation pay their sick time and their vacation pay into<01:22:22.080>
• </c><01:23:26.639><c> from</c> that the 2.4 4% we now paying from that the 2.4 4% we now paying from
• </c><01:27:01.679><c> cities</c> appropriation from that to pay cities appropriation from that to pay

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee met to review Division One of a very large budget package, with the chair explaining that the budget was being analyzed in three divisions over multiple days. Members first discussed procedure, including when amendments and line-item votes would be taken, and agreed to proceed with the division’s presentation before questions. Representative Maguire then outlined the division’s approach as a series of tradeoffs to close a large budget gap, emphasizing cuts, some revenue changes, and a focus on overall spending levels as well as individual reductions. The presentation covered a wide range of agencies and policy areas. Major proposed changes included cuts or eliminations to several boards and commissions viewed as costly or duplicative, such as the Housing Appeals Board, Board of Tax and Land Appeals, Human Rights Commission, Commission on Aging, Office of the Child Advocate, and the Personnel Appeals Board, with some functions consolidated into other boards. The division also proposed back-of-the-budget cuts to the Information Technology Department, Judicial Branch, Justice Department, Retirement System, Corrections, and Environmental Services, along with fee increases in several areas. Other notable items included ending marketing for Paid Family Leave, reducing job advertising and tourism promotion, defunding the Arts Council, moving liquor enforcement functions out of the Liquor Commission, and shifting some funds such as the College Savings Commission money to Division Two. Several members questioned specific cuts, especially the elimination of the Council on Aging, the reduction in regional planning commission grants, and the large cut to tourism advertising. Maguire defended the choices as necessary budget tradeoffs, arguing that some programs duplicated work done elsewhere, that regional planning grants were not among the most essential items, and that tourism promotion was a form of spending he viewed skeptically. He also explained that the public defender’s budget was partially restored after a credible claim of a governor’s budget error, and that the committee would continue refining corrections-related cuts because the House was only halfway through the budget process and further changes could still occur in the Senate and conference committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• You don't have to pay; state law determines how much of the state's going to pay.
• </c> much of the state's going to pay much of the state's going to pay currently<00:32:46.840><c> it's
• But the expectation is you've been ordered to pay that amount.
• But the expectation is you've been ordered to pay that amount.
• But the expectation is you've been ordered to pay that amount.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met to review a large package of bills, with the first four—HB 717, 742, 773, and 603—focused on special education aid, formerly called catastrophic aid. Chair Ladin explained that the committee needed to move a special education bill forward by March 4 and was trying to determine which bill would serve as the vehicle. He described the current formula and the difficulty of estimating the fiscal impact of lowering the threshold from 3.5 times the statewide average cost per pupil to a lower level, noting that DOE did not have reliable data on how many students would fall into the lower-cost bands. The committee also noted that several other bills in the package addressed SWEP and adequacy issues, and that HB 510 dealt with due process rather than funding. Mark Mello of the Bureau of School Finance testified that the department only has reliable data for special education expenditures above $70,000 per student, since claims are submitted for reimbursement at that point. He said the bureau was trying to estimate how many students might fall between 2.5x and 3.5x or 3x and 3.5x the average cost, but that the basic answer was they did not know and that any estimate would be difficult. He explained that moving the threshold from 3.5x to 2.5x would create a minimum additional cost of about $13.6 million based on existing claims, not counting new students who would enter the range. Members discussed whether districts already had the underlying data, whether a survey should be required, and how districts know when to begin tracking costs for reimbursement. The committee also discussed proration and the state’s share of special education aid. Mello explained that the current 80% state share is modeled in the formula, but the actual payment has been prorated because appropriations have not matched the statutory liability; he said the state liability was about $50 million, while the budget had provided $34 million, resulting in a 68% payment rate. HB 742 was described as a bill that would eliminate proration by paying the liability directly from the education trust fund with an overflow mechanism. Members also discussed possible alternatives such as changing the state share, using a lower threshold in a transition period, or requiring districts to submit data. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided; the committee was still in discussion and considering which bills to advance.

Transcript Highlights:

• So again, we evaluated a sidewalk utility, and this is a fee that property owners would pay based on
• You pay a fee for playing in the city's recreational pickleball league.
• The local government imposing the fee has to show that the person who pays the fee gets a benefit from
• You pay a fee for playing in the city's recreational pickleball league.
• I mean, how are we looking at specifically to pay that investment back?

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• one-third of homeowners paying more than 30% of their income on housing alone.
• Assembly members, none of us here technically pays a monthly air fee.
• Not in the same way we pay our utility bills for water and energy, or we pay to occupy the soil under
• Our community is already paying.
• This is a polluter-pays model.

Summary: The committee heard several bills and one resolution focused on recycling, housing affordability, air quality, coastal protection, wildfire resilience, and nuclear policy. AB 2559, by Assembly Member Ward, would require local governments to return refundable construction and demolition permit deposits if compliance documentation is submitted within three years of final inspection; supporters said it would prevent homeowners and developers from losing deposits due to mismatched local deadlines, and it passed unanimously as amended to Appropriations. AB 1704, by Assembly Member Gonzalez, would require CARB to assess the cost of lower-embodied-carbon building materials and pause the embodied-carbon program if cost parity is not reached; supporters framed it as a housing affordability safeguard, while environmental groups argued it would delay implementation of a key climate law. The bill passed on a party-line vote to Appropriations. AB 2349, by Assembly Member Solache, would create regional air quality incident response centers for emergency monitoring and coordination; it drew strong support from air district and local government representatives and passed unanimously to Appropriations. ACR 149, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the California Coastal Act and Coastal Conservancy, highlighted coastal access, habitat protection, and climate adaptation; it passed the committee, though some members voted no. AB 1960, by Assembly Member Bennett, would let Cal Fire fund community-level wildfire hardening projects through the Wildfire Prevention Grants Fund; members raised questions about funding and implementation, but it passed to Appropriations. AB 2254, the Coastal Monarchs Protection Act, would require coastal local governments to add monarch overwintering protections when updating local coastal plans; supporters cited steep monarch declines and economic benefits, while local government groups opposed the mandate as duplicative and burdensome, and it passed to Water, Parks and Wildlife. AB 2253 would restrict deceptive recycled-content claims and mass-balance accounting practices; supporters said it would protect consumers and real recyclers, while business groups argued it would conflict with recognized accounting systems and EPR programs. The transcript also included AB 1757, which would create a limited carve-out from California’s nuclear moratorium for microreactors; supporters said it could provide clean, local power and support data centers, while opponents warned of cost, waste, and safety risks. The committee ultimately rejected AB 1757 on a divided vote, then granted reconsideration, and the discussion continued without a final action shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• one-third of homeowners paying more than 30% of their income on housing alone.
• Assembly Members, none of us here technically pays a monthly air fee.
• Not in the same way we pay our utility bills for water and energy, or we pay to occupy the soil under
• Our community is already paying.
• This is a polluter pay model.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Like that the facility could get out of paying for any legitimate referral.
• They quit paying her. She left, and they held a non-compete.
• They quit paying her. She left, and they held a non-compete.
• There is also you do not pay income tax or corporate tax on the net exit.
• Also, you do not pay income tax or corporate tax on the net access.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 1036 prohibits DES from paying benefits until the validity of an initial claim is cross-checked
• To accept jobs that don't necessarily match their skill sets, and to take pay cuts as well, and that
• cuts. to accept jobs that don't necessarily match their skill sets, and to take pay cuts as well, and
• I don't know how that would be impacted because we might continue with the low pay.
• Access to emergency services is a fundamental reason that we pay taxes.

Bills: HB2070, HB2129, HB2227, HB2439, HB2667, HB2745, HB2773, HB2825, HB2873, HB2876, HCR2005, HCR2044, SB1002, SB1036, SB1054, SB1271, SB1432, SB1435, SB1437, SB1439, SCR1022, SCR1031, SCR1033

Keywords: flood relief, Gila County, emergency funding, public safety, environmental cleanup, municipal libraries, annual reporting, state legislation, transparency, government accountability, chiropractic, chiropractor, chiropractic board, state board of chiropractic examiners, license discipline, unprofessional conduct, patient records, record retention, HIPAA, conflict of interest

Transcript Highlights:

• But LEAs do not receive more for hiring more staff or choosing to pay them more.
• These changes do not change pay schedules, and they do not change the amount that LEAs would receive
• So there was absolutely no discretionary money to pay for utilities, for idle power, for heat, and so
• The other aspect of choosing college for a student, they are paying for that.
• for their own remediation because they are paying for the class in order to get them there.

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The committee heard a lengthy presentation on the K-12 public school support budget, including how support units, career ladder funding, health insurance, discretionary funding, transportation, facilities, and the Public Education Stabilization Fund (PSIF) work. Legislative Services explained that FY 2026 support units were revised downward, creating a $22.3 million ongoing general fund reduction, and walked through the FY 2027 agency request and governor’s recommendation. The governor recommended no increase for population forecast adjustments, but did recommend some statutory and policy changes, including shifting certain interest earnings to the general fund and reducing funding for some virtual school and IDLA-related items. The agency request also included one-time proposals for a high-needs special education fund and a regional service model for related services. Members asked extensive questions about how career ladder dollars are distributed, how health insurance and discretionary funds interact, why the health insurance increase in the budget differed from current plan estimates, and how facilities money under House Bill 292 is used. There were also questions about the size and use of the Idaho Career Ready Students fund, the maintenance-of-effort implications of special education funding, and whether some special education costs are being used for student housing or other noninstructional expenses. The superintendent and budget staff emphasized that many of the budget lines are formula-driven or statutorily required, that local districts determine actual staffing and spending within those formulas, and that special education costs continue to outpace available funding. Superintendent Debbie Critchfield then framed the budget request around enrollment trends, shifting demographics, and the need for more flexibility in how districts use existing dollars. She highlighted proposed categorical flexibility for some funds, changes to digital content and curriculum distribution, continued literacy gains, growth in career technical education programs funded through Idaho Career Ready Students, and the importance of endowment and Millennium Fund support. She also described the special education proposals as a temporary bridge while the state considers larger formula changes and noted a near $100 million gap between special education spending and funding. She further outlined planned federal waiver requests on assessments and flexibility, and said the department is seeking more state control over testing and reporting requirements. The committee did not take final action on the budget during this portion of the meeting. Members raised concerns about interest transfers from dedicated funds, the complexity of the funding formula, special education accountability, and whether the state should revisit the overall school funding model. Several follow-up data requests were made, including information on health insurance participation, regional special education service needs, and school contingency fund balances.

Transcript Highlights:

• that ends up in our bailiwick in order to pay for some of these things.
• In our bailiwick in order to pay for some of these things.
• Douglas County is going to be paying $380,000 for the tort insurance.
• Basically what it means is all parties have to pay it.
• However, just the simple change of not having to pay out the new construction when we... ...of not paying

Summary: The committee first heard an update on the Joint Transportation Committee study of transportation impacts if the Lower Snake River dams were removed. WSDOT and Jacobs described the study’s phases, including current work on geology, infrastructure risk, and a total logistics cost model. They explained that the study is examining how freight now moved by barge—especially wheat, fertilizer, and wood—could shift to rail and roads, and they outlined several scenarios ranging from no-dam future conditions to new unit-train terminals, short-line rail options, and a combined “many solutions” scenario. Members asked about irrigation, impacts in Idaho and Oregon, port capacity, emissions, competition, EV trucks, and whether the model could estimate transportation effects if grain volumes decline. The presenters said the study assumes current production levels continue, does not model irrigation changes or broader farm-economics impacts, but does account for transloading costs and can estimate transportation impacts under different volume assumptions. WSU’s independent review team said the model has improved substantially but still needed refinement, especially in routing, road data, and spatial detail, and that stakeholder engagement had been strong though delayed by model development. No votes were taken. The committee then received a presentation on the alternative sidewalk funding study. Staff and consultants said the study is exploring ways local governments could sustainably fund sidewalk maintenance, repair, and new construction, using a statewide survey, interviews, national research, and case studies in eight jurisdictions. They noted sidewalks are important for pedestrian safety and connectivity, but there is no dedicated funding source in Washington, and existing grants and local revenue tools are highly competitive or limited. The consultants highlighted sidewalk fees or utility-style charges as the most promising option to study, while a parcel tax was largely set aside because of state property-tax uniformity concerns. Members asked whether the study would duplicate existing funding or add to current taxes, and how a sidewalk fee would be collected; the consultants said the goal is to expand local options, not mandate adoption, and that fees would likely be billed through utilities rather than property taxes. A preliminary draft report is due December 15, with a final report due in mid-June. Next, staff gave a brief update on the ocean-going vessels study, which is examining shore power and emissions rules for vessels at berth. The presenter explained that federal Clean Air Act rules and California waiver authority create legal limits on how far Washington can go if it wants to adopt similar standards, and that deviations from California’s approach can increase litigation risk. The report will summarize stakeholder outreach and will be presented in draft form at the next JTC meeting. Finally, county engineers from Chelan and Douglas counties began a presentation on county transportation challenges, with the association’s director emphasizing collaboration with state agencies and local partners on issues such as fish passage barriers and infrastructure needs. The county presentation was only beginning when the transcript ended, and no committee action or votes were recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• should show where the trip was from so the Department of Transportation mileage table can be used to pay
• </c> Transportation mileage table to pay Transportation mileage table to pay correctly.<00:11:47.440>
• So I'm going to get a cut pay. pay. pay. because<00:11:50.399><c> it's</c><00:11:50.640><c> two</c><00
• We still pay in insurance costs, maintenance, repairs.
• The second empire of France and the second empire of Mexico, because we're not going to pay...

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in work session and focused only on SB 291; SB 249 and SB 83 were postponed for at least two weeks, and the chair said there would be no meeting next week. The chair also announced a deadline of the 22nd for clearing out drawers and lockers, and reminded members about a field trip to Nashua the next day and mileage paperwork for attendees. For SB 291, the chair distributed Amendment 2025-1925H, explaining that it was intended to simplify the bill and address concerns about church parsonages by allowing a church to rent out a parsonage and apply the net income to a pastor’s housing allowance. Members discussed whether the language could unintentionally exclude non-Christian denominations, whether the bill was too narrow, and what guardrails would prevent abuse. Several members said the amendment was clearer and supported it, while one member preferred retaining the bill for more study. The discussion also touched on how “church” and “parsonage” are defined under existing law and IRS rules, with the chair and others saying the language was broad enough and that no testimony from other religious groups had raised concerns. After the discussion, the chair took a straw poll showing support for the amendment and then closed the work session. In executive session, a motion was made and seconded to ought to pass SB 291.