Transcript Highlights:

• members of the public who are paying members of the public who are paying attention<01:39:45.880
• for um the contributions that they pay for um the contributions that they pay there<04:00:51.159
• So they're paying, for example, I'll use employees because the numbers are simpler: the employee pays
• So they're paying, for example, I'll use employees because the numbers are simpler: the employee pays
• So they're paying, for example, I'll use employees because the numbers are simpler: the employee pays

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held an orientation for new and returning members of the House committee on agencies and administration, with introductions from members and staff. Chair Carol Maguire outlined her expectations for hearings: keep questions focused on the bill, be respectful to witnesses, and use the committee’s orientation opportunities to learn about the jail staff, retirement system, and Office of Professional Licensure. Members also discussed related assignments on other bodies, including the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules and the Joint Committee on Employee Classification, and noted that some members already serve on those panels. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on the State Building Code and the committee’s upcoming workload. Members explained how the state code is intended to provide a common baseline while allowing limited local options, and why municipalities must formally adopt and publish any local amendments. They reviewed several anticipated bills: a consolidation bill to gather building-code enforcement materials in one place, a bill to update the state energy code, a bill to restrict municipal adoption of building-code changes, and a bill to update the electrical code. Members also discussed how building codes apply to older homes and commercial buildings, and why code updates are important for safety and clarity. The chair said the committee had 36 bills currently scheduled, including many early bills that must move by March 6 because they will be heard by two committees. She said the committee would use subcommittees for harder bills, with three subcommittees this year: pensions, licensing, and likely state building code. She also outlined the hearing schedule, including lighter bills on February 12 and the expectation of executive sessions later in the month. No votes were taken during the orientation, but members were told that public hearings do not require a quorum and that hard copies of bills would be distributed by committee staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:13:19.800> $195 Minnesota Charities currently pay $195 Minnesota Charities currently pay
• There are some expenses that we have to pay for.
• There are some expenses that we have to pay for.
• Christy Jano: There are some expenses that we have to pay for.
• <00:37:34.720> to could lessen the taxes that we pay to could lessen the taxes that we pay

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 169, which would change the tax structure for charitable gambling. Representative Robbins offered and the committee adopted the A1 author’s amendment, described as a technical correction to ensure sports-themed tip boards are not inadvertently taxed under the bill. Robbins then presented the bill as a way to replace the current tiered combined net receipts tax on charitable gambling with a flat 5% rate, arguing charities were being overtaxed and that prior promises of relief had not been fully delivered. Chair Stevenson pushed back on several of Robbins’ factual claims, correcting the record on the status of E-pull tabs, the share of charitable gambling revenue they represent, and the amount of tax relief already enacted in 2023 and 2024. He said E-tabs were not eliminated, that the revenue split between paper pull tabs and E-tabs is closer to 45/55, and that charities had already received a $15 million tax cut plus savings from reduced developer fees. Robbins responded that the changes still significantly reduced revenue and that the bill was intended as a middle-ground approach. Testimony largely came from charitable gambling and veterans groups in support of the bill. Rachel Jenner of Allied Charities of Minnesota said nearly 1,000 charities depend on charitable gambling, cited high taxes and fees, and said many organizations were seeing revenue declines after the new E-pull tab rules took effect. Dr. Christy Jano of the American Legion Department of Minnesota said charitable gambling funds support veterans, youth, and community programs, and that a flat 5% tax would help posts continue those efforts. Members asked about the size of the revenue drops and how much gambling proceeds go to overhead and operating costs; Jenner said the losses varied by organization and that it was too early to know the long-term effect, while Jano said some expenses are used for property taxes and building upkeep. The committee then moved on to additional testimony, including Tim Angstrom, but no final vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, it excludes Minnesotans pay.
• travel and spend money, you're paying travel and spend money, you're paying taxes<00:03:42.720><
• <00:05:16.800> the businesses don't ultimately pay the businesses don't ultimately pay the
• <00:09:27.880> their<00:09:28.040> bills pay their bills pay their bills but<00:09:29.280
• of my income going to pay those taxes? of my income going to pay those taxes?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You have to pay your private insurance company, you have to pay Medicare, Medicaid, and your private
• You have to pay your private insurance company, you have to pay Medicare, Medicaid, and your private
• You have to pay your private insurance company, you have to pay Medicare, Medicaid, and your private
• pay, than what Medicaid would pay.
• would pay, than what Medicaid<00:45:29.800> would<00:45:30.040> pay.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:00:38 Consideration of Referred Administrative Regulations 00:01:34 Proposed Legislation for the 2026 Session 00:10:14 Basic and Added Reparation (PIP) Benefits 00:10:41 Prior Authorization 00:46:15 Measures to Strengthen Kentucky’s Economic Infrastructure 00:59:46, 958, all

Summary: The committee met in a special-called session of the Interim Joint Committee on Banking and Insurance and first took up three Department of Insurance regulations tied to House Bill 256, the Strengthen Kentucky Homes program: 806 KAR 22:00, 22:10, and 22:20. Commissioner Sharon Clark said the program would provide $5 million in grants to help homeowners strengthen roofs, with regulations covering eligibility and operations, contractors and evaluators, and reinspections in cases of suspected fraud. A committee substitute to 806 KAR 22:10 was explained as a technical correction to conform to the statutory preference for in-state contractors and evaluators. Representative Hampton moved and Representative Rudy seconded approval of the substitute, and it was adopted by voice vote; the amended regulations were then reviewed. Clark also said the grant money would be distributed statewide rather than targeted to storm-prone areas. The committee then heard an update from Commissioner Clark on mental health parity in response to questions from Representative Pollock. Clark said the department reviews insurer filings and conducts market conduct examinations, but does not have authority over provider reimbursement rates or to require providers to join insurer networks. She said complaints are investigated and, when needed, teams review claims and data on site to check compliance with parity requirements. No action was taken on that discussion. After approving the November 4 meeting minutes, the committee heard testimony on a proposed PIP reform package from Representative Josh Bray, the Kentucky Hospital Association, the Kentucky Justice Association, and State Farm. Supporters said the bill would apply the workers’ compensation fee schedule to most PIP medical claims, keep the $10,000 PIP limit in place while stretching benefits further, reduce balance billing, modernize benefit amounts, and address fraud and delayed billing. They noted hospitals would be exempt from the fee schedule, while hospital-based physical therapy would be included, and said the compromise reflected negotiations among stakeholders. Some members questioned whether exempting hospitals undercut the bill’s purpose and asked about possible rate effects; proponents said they had not done a rate analysis and that the bill could lead to more treatments within the existing PIP limit. No vote was taken on the PIP proposal during this meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are extra charges that consumers won't have to pay so that they're paying only for what they use
• Then we would figure out how to pay for that.
• Then we would figure out how to pay for that.
• In every community, residents are paying more: more to pay their mortgages or their rents, to pay their
• property taxes, to pay their water and sewer bills, to pay their utility bills, and more.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on H. 4144, the Governor’s Energy Affordability, Independence, and Innovation Act, with the administration arguing the bill would lower bills in the short and long term while expanding clean energy supply and innovation. The Governor and Secretary said the bill would reduce or restructure charges on customer bills, reform Mass Save, expand securitization as a financing tool, speed interconnection, create energy-ready zones, strengthen consumer protections in competitive supply, and allow broader state procurement of energy resources. They said the package could save consumers billions over time and would help address high energy costs, especially during extreme heat and winter spikes. Committee members pressed the administration on several provisions, especially securitization, asking whether the bill requires an apples-to-apples comparison of total costs over time, including interest and lost tax revenue, versus paying through rates. Administration witnesses said DPU review and public comment would be required and said they would work to clarify the language if needed. Members also questioned the bill’s solar and procurement provisions, including reduced net metering compensation for some large facilities, the scope of all-resource procurements, and whether hydro, solar, and nuclear would be included; the administration said those resources were contemplated and that procurement would still be reviewed by DPU. Other questions focused on the short-term relief from bill changes, the treatment of low- and moderate-income discounts, and whether the bill’s heat pump and Mass Save reforms would help customers who cannot afford upfront costs. Several witnesses and committee members discussed Mass Save reforms, including securitization of program costs, on-bill financing, pre-approval of rebates, and shifting program administration away from gas utilities. Administration witnesses said the changes were intended to reduce volatility, lower administrative costs, and better align costs with long-term savings. Questions also touched on geothermal permitting, municipal participation in offshore wind procurement, and the proposed repeal of the ballot requirement for nuclear power, which the administration defended as preserving future options under heavy review. No votes were taken during the hearing portion described. Supportive testimony came from labor, environmental, business, planning, and development groups. The AFL-CIO, NECA, and the Environmental League of Massachusetts backed the bill, emphasizing lower bills, job creation, labor standards, just transition protections, and cleaner energy. NAIOP, the Massachusetts Business Roundtable, and MAPC supported provisions on energy-ready zones, interconnection reform, microgrids, extreme-heat shutoff protections, and Mass Save improvements. A HEET representative praised the bill’s use of securitization, geothermal, and utility financing tools but urged guardrails and workforce protections. Overall, testimony was broadly favorable, with most witnesses calling for refinements rather than opposing the bill outright.

Transcript Highlights:

• coercive PBM practices and pay coercive PBM practices and pay communityarmacies<00:22:59.039>
• who are paying the bill. So, thank you. who are paying the bill. So, thank you.
• Depending on income, they don't pay anything, but the majority are probably paying some.
• Depending on income, they don't pay anything, but the majority are probably paying some.
• they're paying for Tennessee is paying they're paying for Tennessee is paying for<02:37:34.399><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Jones also pays a surcharge.
• Somebody has to pay for that.
• We pay. Thank you so much.
• We pay Miami Gardens Police. We don't get the four-letter F word free. We pay. Thank you so much.
• We pay for that. That comes out of the 25%. Which our employees will do. We pay for that.

Summary: The committee first took up CS/SB 1730, a Live Local Act bill on affordable housing. The sponsor described it as a set of technical and policy adjustments to strengthen implementation, including changes to zoning, height, parking, moratoriums, attorney fees, and related land-use rules. An amendment by Senator Claudio was adopted, adding provisions such as a 10-story height limit near single-family neighborhoods, exclusions for certain protected areas, and changes to fee and use definitions. The committee then reported the bill favorably. Members next considered CS/SB 1674 on unrated bonds for Israel bonds, with a clarifying amendment adopted to make clear the bill applied only to Israel bonds. CS/SB 140 on charter schools was also approved after debate over parent-led conversion of public schools, municipal job-engine charter schools, and surplus school property; opponents warned about local control and impacts on teachers and communities, while the sponsor said the bill preserved district authority and created new school-choice and economic-development options. The committee also passed SB 96, a claims bill for Jacob Rogers, and CS/SB 954 on recovery residences, after strike-all amendments that addressed zoning, ADA concerns, bed caps, staffing ratios, and limits on operation in certain multifamily settings. Senators expressed support for expanding treatment housing but also raised neighborhood and staffing concerns. The committee then approved CS/SB 1714 on local housing assistance plans, which would allow SHIP funds for limited lot-rental assistance for mobile-home owners and require local plans to address mobile-home park closures. SB 658 on standardized construction lien release forms was reported favorably despite testimony from contractors and lawyers warning about possible effects on lien rights and the separate House proposal. The committee also reconsidered and then approved CS/SB 482 after a late-filed amendment addressing local government art fees and a key issue over defining “extraordinary circumstances,” with counties and cities saying more work remained. Finally, the committee passed SB 24 and CS/SB 4, both local claims bills, CS/SB 712 on synthetic turf and related construction rules, SB 952 repealing the emergency firearms/ammunition restriction, CS/SB 1164 allowing email notice delivery in landlord-tenant matters with opt-in safeguards, and SB 202 on municipal water and sewer rates, which drew extensive opposition from North Miami Beach and Miami Gardens officials over utility surcharges and revenue impacts. The meeting ended with SB 202 still under heavy questioning and testimony about the fairness and financial consequences of the surcharge structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• If we were to pay up to $150 an hour, which again is less than what risk management pays even at the
• If we were to pay up to $150 an hour, which again is less than what risk management pays even at the
• Their pay is so much better.
• I'm about to pay.
• But rather than pay him $300,000 a year, we pay him $120,000 a year, which is a lot less.

Transcript Highlights:

• About 57% of Them are private pay already.
• brought up pay, and we've increased pay at a 14 percent over the last five years, but we've also created
• And then scenario two would be something like co-pays at a recommended breaking point where co-pays would
• That's when co-pays would begin.
• I mean, we can – the pay issue is minimal, but.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I encourage you to increase the base pay for Texas judges.
• But yes, I think that people are really looking at the pay.
• As an organization, 100% fully behind increase in judicial pay.
• On the pay raises, I would have loved to have seen the pay raises actually higher than what has been
• On the pay raises, I would have loved to have seen the pay raises actually higher than what has been

Bills: HB40

Keywords: law enforcement, sheriffs, constables, contracts, county authority

Summary: The Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence met to hear House Bill 1761, a broad judicial package focused on increasing judicial compensation and adding accountability and efficiency measures. The chair explained that HB 1707 and HB 2100 were withdrawn from the agenda, and that HB 1761 would be taken up first because many judges and stakeholders were present. The committee substitute for HB 1761 proposed a 30% increase in base judicial pay to $182,000, changes to judicial retirement linkage, stronger judicial conduct provisions, and efficiency measures such as targeted reporting for judges not meeting benchmarks, appellate in-person meeting encouragement, and time limits on certain motions. The chair and several supporters said judicial pay had reached “emergency status,” citing Texas’s low national ranking and difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified judges. Witnesses in support included presiding and district judges, the State Bar’s judicial section, business and trial lawyer groups, and prosecutors. They emphasized that many judges work long hours off the bench, handle warrants at night and on weekends, manage heavy dockets, and face recruitment problems in both urban and rural counties. Supporters also said higher pay would help attract experienced lawyers, retain judges, and improve court efficiency. Several witnesses and members discussed judicial accountability, including public reporting of court performance and the role of the Texas Supreme Court and presiding judges in setting benchmarks. Some members raised concerns that raw statistics can be misleading because judges also do substantial off-the-bench work and often help cover other courts’ dockets. There was also testimony and discussion about the bill’s conduct and discipline provisions. A representative of the Texas Civil Rights Project opposed parts of the bill that would tie pay raises to changes affecting judicial independence, warning about subjective bail-related discipline standards and possible chilling effects. The executive director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct cautioned against civil penalties for complainants, saying it could discourage good-faith complaints and create litigation risks. Other witnesses supported accountability reforms but urged caution about unintended consequences, especially for family and emergency cases and for judges handling warrants and other time-sensitive matters. After testimony, the committee withdrew the committee substitute and left HB 1761 pending, then recessed the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you leave five to seven years, you only have to pay back 50%; seven to 10 years, you pay back 25%;
• We have 52,581 active members paying in, just under 47,000 retirees that we are paying out.
• out more retirees than we have active paying in.
• You know, when we pay out more money than we pay in, we've got to manage that liquidity need, so we can't
• Me, as a state employee, the benefit that I'm going to receive between what I pay in and the state pays

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So if you just don't file, you're just going to pay $200 bucks? $1.75. If you pay it.
• If you pay it. Or you don't pay it. Or you don't pay it.
• You're going to pay a $200 fine.
• They don't pay it. They don't. They're like, 'You're going to owe $200 every day until you pay.'
• But if they don't plan to pay it, they don't plan to pay it.

Bills: SB2156

Keywords: campaign finance, disclosure, political contributions, election transparency, North Dakota Century Code, 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review HB 2156, which reorganizes North Dakota campaign finance disclosure law by repealing Chapter 16.1 and moving the provisions into a new Chapter 16.2 with mostly technical cross-reference updates. Legislative Council and the Secretary of State’s office walked through the bill section by section, explaining that most language is carried over from current law, with some cleanup to definitions, reporting requirements, public access rules, and filing procedures. The committee discussed how the new chapter would apply to candidates, candidate committees, political committees, political parties, ballot measure groups, and conduits. Several substantive issues were raised and adjusted during the discussion. Members questioned the open-records language for expenditures and contributions over $250, the use of “deposit” versus “receipt” as the reporting trigger, and whether the 48-hour supplemental reporting deadline should be changed to three calendar days; the group ultimately favored keeping 48 hours and using “deposit” consistently. They also clarified reporting dates, including changing one special-election deadline from 40 days to 39 days, and confirmed that balances of campaign funds would be reported but not made publicly available. The Secretary of State’s office also explained that the bill would make late fees public and that the chapter-wide penalty for willful violations remains a Class A misdemeanor. The main policy change debated at length was the late-filing fee schedule. Members expressed concern that the existing penalties were too low to deter intentional non-filers, and after discussion the committee agreed to increase the final late fee from $100 to $500 while keeping the new public posting of delinquent filers. The committee also reviewed an inflation-adjustment provision for reporting thresholds and the “ultimate true source of funds” language, which was described as existing law being carried into the new chapter. The meeting ended with the understanding that additional drafting changes would be made and that the bill would be ready for further committee action later in the week.

Transcript Highlights:

• Medicare Advantage, instead of paying fee for service, pays a capitated rate up front to the carrier,
• Now they have scaled that back, so instead of paying 80% of those large claims, they are paying around
• So when they set it up in 2025, they are limiting the amount that a member pays to $2,000.
• But in your plan design that has co-pays, and it's much richer plan, their co-pays count toward their
• But anything your plan's paying in addition to their co-pays that would get them up to that standard

Summary: The committee received an update from Grant Wallace on the rebid and possible decoupling of the state’s Medicare Advantage retiree coverage. He said the state is exploring splitting medical and pharmacy benefits for post-65 retirees, with UnitedHealthcare as the incumbent vendor, and that preliminary estimates suggested savings of about $100 to $200 per participant per month. He outlined the expected timeline for final CMS rate announcements in April 2026, with contract amendments likely to come before the committee in May or June after review by the EBD Advisory Commission and State Board of Finance. Representatives from Segal Consulting then reviewed the history and current structure of the Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan, explaining that the plan was adopted after a 2021 recommendation and launched in 2023 alongside the existing Med-Sup option. They said the Medicare Advantage option has produced substantial savings, including a lower monthly rate than the Med-Sup plan and about $40 million in savings from initial enrollment, while also restoring pharmacy benefits for some retirees. The presenters then explained recent federal changes under the Inflation Reduction Act, including major changes to Part D funding, the direct subsidy, and risk-score methodology, which they said have made risk adjustment much more important and are driving interest in separating medical and pharmacy contracts. In response to questions from senators, the presenters said the Medicare Advantage plan covers post-65 teacher and state employee retirees, including retirees from state agencies and K-12 public schools. They also explained that the new Part D structure has reduced out-of-pocket costs for members, with a $2,000 annual cap and lower average member spending to reach it, while shifting more cost to the plan. No votes were taken and no formal action was reported; the committee simply received the update and was told to expect further information after the April rate notice. The meeting adjourned with the committee scheduled to return on May 13.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's when they pay up to that amount and then after that we pay 80%, they pay 20%, and once you
• we pay." we pay."
• It's not just a contract. >> The district still has to pay. The state has to pay.
• paying for the school bus, right? paying for the school bus, right? >> Mhm.
• <01:18:46.080> pays<01:18:46.400> for where the school districts pay pays for where

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission held an organizational meeting under SB 57 to study the cost of special education, with the meeting streamed publicly at the chair’s request. Members introduced themselves, and the chair explained that the bill creates two separate pieces, one dealing with SAU structure and the other with a commission on special education costing. He outlined his background in education and special education and said the commission’s work would focus on understanding and controlling special education costs. The commission reviewed its membership requirements and noted several vacancies or unfilled appointments, including the special education advocate, two governor-appointed parent advocates, and a Department of Health and Human Services representative. The members then elected Representative Rick Ladd as chair, Representative Dick Ames as vice chair, and Representative Megan Murray as clerk. Representative Ames briefly described his legal and policy background in disability and special education work in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The chair then walked through the commission’s study topics, including referral rates by IDEA category, reasons for increases in categories such as autism and other health impairment, post-COVID referral trends, pre-referral interventions, Medicaid and 504-related costs, out-of-district placements, dispute resolution, billing practices, privacy, reimbursement, legal services, graduation rates, attendance, and adult learning. Members discussed how special education costs are distributed, noting that the state spends about $977 million annually on special education, with only part covered by state aid and the remainder largely borne by local districts. Testimony also noted that out-of-district placement costs have risen sharply since rate-setting changes around 2018, and that some categories may reflect changes in identification practices, medical factors, or broader population shifts. The commission agreed to continue reviewing the data and formulas in future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I just feel like it's too much of a pay raise.
• I have to be paying attention full time. I'd rather do other things.
• The U.S.OBs are about to give yourselves a pay raise. It's not that.
• I wrote down fair pay allows elected officials to fully focus.
• Is that coming with a pay raise? I'm just... okay.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 513 by Representative Young, which would regulate name, image, and likeness activity for intercollegiate and interscholastic athletes, especially high school athletes. Young said the bill reflects recommendations from a task force and sets guardrails such as parental consent and prohibited NIL categories. The committee adopted a technical amendment and then reported the bill favorably as amended. Members then heard several Senate bills from Senator Mizell and Senator Cloud. Senate Bill 233 would create a statewide data exchange compact to allow state agencies to share information more efficiently; it was reported favorably. Senate Bill 300 would make various changes to the Procurement Code, including auction techniques, sole sourcing for consulting services in limited cases, and procurement process clarifications; it was reported favorably. Senate Bill 303 would allow executive branch agencies to buy or share technology solutions with other states and use the federal GSA schedule, and it was reported favorably as amended. Senate Bill 411, removing a 20-year lease limitation for certain Orleans Parish state property, was also reported favorably. The committee spent substantial time on House Bill 660 and House Bill 719, both dealing with district attorney funding and staffing. HB 660 would raise the state warrant amount for assistant district attorney salaries from $50,000 to $60,000, with supporters arguing it is needed to recruit and retain prosecutors; an opposition witness argued the state should fund both prosecutors and public defenders more equitably. The committee adopted an amendment making the bill effective only upon appropriation and reported it favorably as amended. HB 719 would increase the number of assistant district attorney warrants statewide, with most of the new warrants directed to Baton Rouge, St. Tammany, and Caddo; it too was amended to be subject to appropriation and reported favorably as amended. House Bill 596, which would have created an inactive well-feet assessment credit for oil and gas operators, was voluntarily deferred after concerns that it could reduce funding for the oil field site restoration fund. Later, the committee reported favorably as amended House Bill 802, which redirects existing revenue to watershed and flood restoration work in the Amite River Basin, and House Bill 940, which creates a task force and rules framework for law enforcement responses to unlawful drone activity. It also reported favorably House Bill 76 on coverage for orally administered anti-cancer medications, House Bill 950 on consumer protection materials for seniors, and began discussion of House Bill 1028, which would require higher Medicaid reimbursement rates for non-emergency medical transportation providers.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the co-pay is the amount the patient pays when they go to visit the doctor. It's a fixed amount.
• But that 20% the patient pays is called the co-insurance—what the patient pays after the deductible.
• They have to pay the GRT on that.
• So what we did is we said, we're not going to pay tax on food. They weren't paying tax on food.
• Of course, the people you're paying with SNAP still wouldn't pay that.

Summary: The committee’s final day focused first on a historical overview of New Mexico tax packages by Pam Stokes of Legislative Council Services. She described how tax packages have alternated over the decades between tax relief, revenue raising, and tax reform, with examples ranging from the creation of the gross receipts tax in 1966 to major packages in 1981, 1986, 1991, 1994, 2005, 2019, 2022, 2024, and the vetoed 2025 package. Members discussed how tax policy often tracks revenue conditions, how packages can combine increases and decreases, and how local government gross receipts taxes and hold-harmless distributions have affected communities differently. Several members reflected on past packages, especially the 2004 food tax repeal and the 2013 film tax and manufacturing changes, and noted that tax policy can have major economic and political effects even when it is not “sexy” legislation. The committee then heard a proposal to expand the health care practitioner gross receipts tax deduction to include co-insurance, and to extend the sunset date. Sponsor Senator Figueroa said the bill was intended to help recruit and retain medical providers and build on prior deductions for co-pays and deductibles. Testimony explained that co-insurance is the patient’s share after the deductible, that providers currently absorb the gross receipts tax on those payments, and that the proposal would cost about $30 million to the state plus about $20 million to municipalities and counties, with the exact fiscal impact likely to be updated. Members raised concerns about the effect on local governments, whether insurers could be required to reimburse providers, whether the bill would actually attract doctors, and whether better evaluation measures and sunsets should be added. The sponsor said the bill was part of a broader set of efforts to address provider shortages and that the discussion would continue. Representative McQueen then presented a bill to update the Land Conservation Incentives Act. He and conservation partners said the program has protected more than 500,000 acres but has not kept pace with rising land values, especially for irrigated agricultural land in the Middle Rio Grande. The proposal would increase the percentage of conservation value eligible for the credit, raise the per-transaction cap from $250,000 to $2 million, and make the credit refundable rather than only transferable. Testimony emphasized that the program is voluntary, keeps land in private ownership and production, and helps land-rich, cash-poor landowners preserve farmland and water rights. Members asked about average credit amounts, how easements work, whether landowners could effectively buy land and then use the credit, and whether there should be inflation indexing or a statewide cap. The discussion also touched on water rights, fencing, and the role of conservation easements in protecting agricultural land and compact water deliveries. Finally, Senator Sharer previewed his 2% tax proposal with a historical presentation on New Mexico tax law, using props to illustrate the evolution from early territorial tax codes to the modern tax system. He argued that the state’s current tax structure is overly complex and that recent federal changes have disrupted the personal income tax base. The committee did not take any votes on the day’s presentations; the meeting was primarily informational, with members offering feedback and raising policy concerns for future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The students are mandated to pay in to that fund as much as $800,900.
• their share of funding. ...would not have to pay their share of fund into it?
• And there's a maximum, so no institution has to pay more than that maximum.
• So no institution has to pay more than that maximum.
• These are my members that are going to be paying and subsidizing the Bureau.

Summary: The joint Sunset Review Oversight Hearing focused on the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) and its reauthorization, operations, enforcement, fiscal condition, and student protections. Committee leaders and DCA officials praised the Bureau’s recent improvements in data systems, licensing, inspections, and enforcement, while noting the Bureau’s role has become more important as federal higher education oversight weakens. Bureau Chief Deborah Cochran said the agency has met its inspection mandate for the first time since the law was enacted, increased citations and disciplinary actions, reduced pending complaints, and used data tools to identify risk and monitor institutions more effectively. A major portion of the hearing centered on student harm, especially school closures, transcript access, predatory recruiting, and the Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF). Members asked how the Bureau protects students when schools close, whether bad actors can reopen under new entities, and whether enforcement tools are strong enough. Cochran said the Bureau can cite, fine, place schools on probation, revoke licenses, and order refunds, but it is seeking new authority to deny approval to operators who previously closed schools improperly or failed to refund students. She also said the Bureau is tracking ownership data and is concerned about institutions targeting immigrant and visa students. On STRF, Cochran explained that the fund is currently healthy, assessments are at zero because the balance is above the statutory target, and the Bureau paid about 1,100 claims totaling roughly $17 million over the last four years. Several members questioned the fairness of the assessment structure and discussed alternatives such as surety bonds, but the Bureau said STRF is working well and no change is needed at this time. Fee increases and the Bureau’s structural deficit were another major topic. Cochran said the Bureau reduced costs by eliminating positions, streamlining inspections, improving data analysis, and shifting some student-relief costs to STRF, but that legislative action is still needed to address the deficit. She said the proposed fees were based on workload analyses and that application fees generally match service costs, while annual fees are designed to cover most of the Bureau’s revenue needs. Some members and stakeholders criticized the proposed increases as too high, especially for out-of-state registration and campus fees, while others argued the Bureau needs sufficient resources to regulate effectively. Public commenters from private schools, Northeastern University, San Joaquin Valley College/Carrington College, and TICAS generally supported the Bureau’s mission and reauthorization, but urged changes such as risk-based oversight, better transcript protections, stronger limits on repeated provisional approvals, and more targeted fee and STRF reforms. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with no formal action beyond discussion and receipt of testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• May 20 to would use that money to pay May 20 to pay<00:37:22.560> April<00:37:23.040> 24th
• pay April 24th and to also pay May 8th. pay April 24th and to also pay May 8th. Correct?
• pay the 8th. That is correct. pay the 8th. That is correct.
• paying vendors. paying vendors. not<00:42:43.440> paying<00:42:43.760> vendors not
• And, oh, I forgot: we're going to pay in this $200,000 contract, we're paying $345 an hour.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're paying right now, we're paying part of the $40 billion that got spent in the California fire. >
• policy and you're paying for it now. policy and you're paying for it now.
• <00:26:35.760> paying<00:26:36.159> part<00:26:36.640> of We're pay right now
• we're paying part of We're pay right now we're paying part of the<00:26:37.120> $40<00:26:37.440
• paying for that. paying for that.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And we'll be paying for that school. Someone else owns the school, we'll be paying for it.
• And we'll be paying for that school. Someone else owns the school, we'll be paying for it.
• and um, we are paying for a new school. and um, we are paying for a new school.
• they're paying never pay more than what they're paying for<00:31:42.880> a<00:31:42.920> lease
• So, we don't pay major maintenance directly, we pay for the lease.

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The Select Committee on School Facilities met to satisfy its quarterly statutory requirement and to discuss interim priorities. Staff from LSO reviewed the committee’s duties: monitoring K-12 school facilities statewide, prioritizing needs for the interim, and preparing a budget request due by November 1. They also noted the ongoing litigation related to the Chapter 3, Section 8 exception process and said the committee would move forward with securing a consultant to study that issue, as previously authorized by Management Council. A major topic was school funding formulas, especially how average daily membership (ADM) affects routine and major maintenance funding and how excess square footage is treated. Members revisited an earlier proposal to fund 135% of allowable square footage, which did not advance this session, and discussed whether some schools should instead be funded at a minimum percentage of their actual square footage. Staff explained that some districts have buildings larger than their formula allowance, and that the issue is complicated by older buildings, pools, and other unique facilities. They also noted that recent changes to the major maintenance multiplier increased funding and that some districts are still not fully covered by the formulas. Safety and security funding was another focus. The State Construction Department reported that $10 million was appropriated this year for safety and security upgrades, with some funds expected to go toward vestibules, bollards, and design work, and the rest through a district application process. Officials said the last comprehensive safety assessment was done more than 10 years ago and suggested a new consultant-led study to update priorities, since technology and building conditions have changed. Members also discussed the role of school resource officers and whether the committee should continue leading this work rather than handing it off to the recalibration committee. The committee also examined declining enrollment and excess capacity across the state, citing examples such as Newcastle, Shoshoni, Casper, Campbell County, and Fremont County. Officials said some districts are right-sizing by taking schools offline, while others cannot easily reduce capacity because the buildings are essential to the community. Charter school leasing was raised as a related concern, including the Mills charter school and the fact that the state pays lease costs based on ADM and allowable square footage. No formal votes were taken, but the committee agreed to continue studying these issues, likely including site visits and further data requests during the interim.