Transcript Highlights:

• We unemployment aid um going forward.
• </c> for the student support personnel aid for the student support personnel aid for<00:03:52.799><c>
• That will or the basic supplemental aid.
• On line seven, consolidation transition aid. So this is an ongoing aid increase.
• </c> you have not cut this aid in your bill. you have not cut this aid in your bill. committee<00:58:

Bills: HF1388

Committee: House Education Finance

Keywords: BARR Center, Building Assets, Reducing Risks, education finance, school funding, grant appropriation, evidence-based program, student achievement, social and emotional learning, school climate, teacher effectiveness, high school graduation, students in poverty, students of color, BIPOC, equity in education, Minnesota Department of Education, urban schools, suburban schools, rural schools, school coaching

Transcript Highlights:

• The state has a long history of funding civil legal aid.
• The state has a long history of funding civil legal aid.
• Legal aid delivers both.
• Legal aid truly is homelessness prevention.
• Our information is that legal aid organizations.

Summary: The committee heard budget and workload presentations from the Office of the State Public Defender, legal aid organizations, and the Judicial Branch. OSPD requested permanent funding for positions that had been temporarily funded to implement the Racial Justice Act, explaining that the work has become ongoing and now includes additional Supreme Court briefing, habeas proceedings, investigations, expert analysis, and data requests. The State Public Defender also presented the AB 625 public defense workload report, which found statewide staffing shortages, caseloads above recommended standards, and major gaps in investigators and support staff. Senators asked about racial bias claims, the volume of data requests, and the impact of Prop. 36, and OSPD said it would provide additional written information. The legal aid panel asked for a $50 million increase to the Equal Access Fund, $20 million to restart homelessness prevention services, and $10 million for health care access work, while also supporting Access to Justice Commission requests for loan repayment assistance, immigrant family preparedness services, and innovation grants. Witnesses described legal aid as homelessness prevention and cited examples involving eviction defense, domestic violence survivors, and immigration detention cases. Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Sergio Tapia discussed eviction data, low tenant representation, and court pilots in Compton and at Stanley Mosk that combine mediation, rental assistance, and legal help. Senators asked for service maps, outreach materials, and more detail on funding needs and federal funding losses. For the Judicial Branch overview, the Judicial Council and trial court representatives supported the Governor’s proposed budget, including $70 million for trial court operations, $21.7 million for employee health and retirement costs, and funding for appellate counsel, case processing, and courthouse construction. They said rising costs, staffing retention, and interpreter shortages continue to strain the courts, and described efforts to reallocate interpreter funds and recruit hard-to-find languages such as Mixteco. Senators pressed the branch and the Department of Finance on courthouse facilities, noting that the long-term need is far larger than the current budget proposal; Finance said the branch’s facility needs were estimated at about $22.5 billion over 10 years to start 68 projects and $29.4 billion to complete the remaining projects. The committee requested follow-up information on facilities, judgeships, and interpreter needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• talk about relief aid.
• talk about relief aid.
• talk about relief aid.
• talk about relief aid.
• talk about relief aid.

Summary: The committee held a work session focused on school funding formulas, adequacy aid, and special education aid, with the chair outlining a schedule for the next several Tuesdays and noting that the committee would likely need multiple executive sessions to narrow down the bills. Members discussed the FY 26 formula, including base cost, differentiated aid, extraordinary needs grants, hold harmless provisions, and the roughly $28 million in excess statewide education property tax (SWP) funds that are not currently returned to the state under the existing formula. The first bill discussed was HB 137, which would allow excess SWP funds to remain with the local municipality for school and municipal purposes. Representative Spilsbury argued the issue is fundamental and suggested the state should require excess funds to be remitted back to the state, while Representative Damon said the bill appears to codify current practice and may be unnecessary, especially given possible court action. The discussion then shifted to a related bill from Representative Fellas that would redefine SWP as local money rather than state money and keep the current adequacy aid numbers revenue-neutral for now. Representative Fellas explained that SWP was created in 1999 after the Claremont lawsuit as part of the state’s effort to show increased school aid, but that it effectively labeled part of the local property tax as state money without changing property tax bills. She argued the state should not be tapping local property tax revenue and said her bill would preserve the current distribution while removing the SWP tax label, with future work possible on a different measure of local capacity such as income, home values, or poverty rate. Members also referenced prior discussions of fiscal capacity aid, relief aid, and other formula changes as part of the broader effort to restructure school funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I hired my legislative aide— or yeah, the district legislative aide— out of Tier C because that's
• district legislative aid position.
• legislative aides.
• The new legislator may decide whether to retain the district legislative aide or request a new aide,
• in which case the previous aide may be terminated.

Committee: House Legislative Council

Transcript Highlights:

• The state has a long history of funding civil legal aid.
• Legal aid delivers both.
• Legal aid truly is homelessness prevention.
• Number two, I'm going to give you a little homework for legal aid.
• Lauren Klein with the Legal Aid Association of California.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation heard presentations on the Office of the State Public Defender, civil legal aid funding, and Judicial Branch operations. The State Public Defender requested permanent funding for positions that had been temporarily funded to implement the Racial Justice Act, explaining that the workload has grown substantially through retroactive capital-case briefing, habeas proceedings, data requests, and related statistical analysis. She also presented findings from a public defense workload and staffing report showing that California’s county-based public defense system is under-resourced, with too few attorneys, investigators, and support staff, especially in rural counties, and that statewide standards and funding are lacking. Committee members asked about the scope of racial bias claims, the impact of collaborative courts and Prop. 36, and the need for statewide cost estimates and phased funding options. The committee then heard from legal aid advocates and a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in support of increased civil legal aid funding. Witnesses described the Equal Access Fund, homelessness prevention services, health care access, and immigration detention defense as cost-effective ways to prevent evictions, stabilize families, and reduce downstream public costs. They requested a $50 million increase to the Equal Access Fund, $20 million to restart homelessness prevention services, and $10 million for health care access work, along with additional targeted investments from the California Access to Justice Commission. Testimony emphasized the severe shortage of legal aid attorneys, the high demand for immigration representation, and the role of legal aid in domestic violence, housing, and family law matters. Senators asked for more information on service locations, outreach, funding losses, and how the requested amounts were calculated. In the Judicial Branch overview, Judicial Council and trial court representatives supported the Governor’s proposed budget, including a $70 million increase for trial court operations, $21.7 million for employee health and retirement costs, and funding for appellate counsel and case processing. They said the money is needed to offset inflation, supply chain costs, and staffing pressures, and to preserve access to justice. Senators pressed the branch and Department of Finance on interpreter shortages, midyear funding flexibility, courthouse facilities needs, and judgeship needs in inland counties. Finance officials said they were aware of the broader facilities backlog, and the committee requested follow-up information on the full capital and maintenance needs, interpreter funding, and updated judgeship and workload data. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> would receive full funding in state aid would receive full funding in state aid and<00:34:03.720
• Aid and transportation Aid education Aid and transportation Aid will<01:24:15.280><c> have</c><01:24:
• aid.
• aid.
• aid.

Committee: House Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> of all financial aid recipients. of all financial aid recipients.
• This bill impacts all financial aid. We This bill impacts all financial aid.
• The only aid they're eligible for is the state aid.
• Um... and financial aid. That is the and financial aid.
• </c> uh state aid? uh state aid?

Transcript Highlights:

• Switching to financial aid, this state will provide over a billion dollars of financial aid during the
• Funding for financial aid.
• And that concludes All of the different aspects of financial aid.
• I would assume 18 or 19 percent of that funding would be state financial aid accounts.
• or state aid that they may receive.

Summary: The Postsecondary Education & Workforce Committee held a work session on higher education funding and then public hearings on House Bill 2148 and House Bill 2132. In the work session, OPR staff Kate Henry reviewed enrollment trends, tuition policy, financial aid programs, and funding sources for Washington’s public colleges and universities. Members asked about FTE versus headcount, tuition growth, the Washington College Grant, College Bound, and the Workforce Education Investment Account. Henry explained how state appropriations, tuition, and financial aid interact, and noted that higher education makes up a significant share of the state budget. No votes were taken during the work session. House Bill 2148 would create a “pay-it-forward” graduate student aid program administered by the Student Achievement Council, allowing students to receive tuition support and later make income-based contributions for up to 15 years to fund future students. Sponsor Rep. Reid said the bill is intended to offset the loss of federal graduate loan options and support workforce needs in fields like nursing, teaching, and research. Committee questions focused on repayment terms, possible caps, interest, and program capitalization. Testimony was overwhelmingly supportive, with students and advocates arguing the bill would expand access to graduate education and avoid predatory private debt. House Bill 2132 would limit disclosure and retention of personally identifying and financial information from WASFA applications, generally requiring the Student Achievement Council and institutions to stop retaining that information after one year following the award year unless needed for an audit or appeal. Rep. Leavitt said the bill is meant to reduce unnecessary long-term retention of sensitive student data and improve privacy and security. Supporters, including student leaders and immigrant-advocacy groups, said the bill would protect vulnerable students and increase trust in the aid process. Some members raised concerns about whether shorter retention could affect future record needs, including immigration-related documentation, but the sponsor said students can keep their own records and that the bill preserves audit authority. The hearing ended without a vote, and the chair noted an upcoming busy schedule and cutoff deadlines.

Transcript Highlights:

• The state has a long history of funding civil legal aid.
• The state has a long history of funding civil legal aid.
• Legal aid delivers both.
• Legal aid truly is homelessness prevention.
• Legal aid organizations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Switching to financial aid, this state will provide over a billion dollars of financial aid during the
• State appropriations, tuition, and financial aid are all interrelated.
• And that concludes All of the different aspects of financial aid.
• I would assume 18 or 19 percent of that funding would be state financial aid accounts.
• or state aid that they may receive.

Bills: HB2148 , HB2132

Committee: House Postsecondary Education & Workforce

Keywords: education, pay it forward program, tuition, student loans, financial aid, state financial aid, financial aid application, postsecondary education, higher education, student aid, Washington Student Achievement Council, public records exemption, privacy, student records, personally identifying information, financial information, data sharing agreement, enrollment assistance, institutional records, FERPA

Transcript Highlights:

• aid.
• aid.
• aid.
• aid.
• aid.

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• I appreciate I aid program. Great.
• and local government aid.
• county program aid and local government<00:30:07.840><c> aid.
• Um several of us, government aid.
• Quite frankly, the state of AIDS.

Committee: Senate Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• The interest is distributed to non-basic-aid districts to reduce the per-pupil funding gap between basic-aid
• and non-basic-aid districts.
• SCA 5 addresses the statewide funding disparity between basic-aid and non-basic-aid school districts.
• or non-basic-aid public school.
• Charter schools also do not receive basic-aid funding.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations heard SCA 5, the Education Equalization Act, which would create an Equalization Reserve in the General Fund funded only in strong budget years with non-Prop 98 dollars. Senator Cortese and supporters argued it would provide a stable, ongoing stream of funding to reduce per-pupil disparities between basic-aid and non-basic-aid districts without reducing the Prop 98 minimum guarantee. Supporters included education foundation, school board, administrator, employee, and business representatives. Opponents, including the California Charter Schools Association, argued the measure unfairly excludes charter and county school students and could worsen inequities; some committee members also raised concerns about its fiscal effects and constitutional structure. The committee ultimately voted 4-0 to adopt SCA 5, with the measure kept on call for additional members. The committee then took up a series of Assembly bills, most of which were suspense-file candidates and were moved without objection after brief or waived presentations and no opposition testimony. AB 402, AB 708, AB 1080, AB 1126, AB 1235, AB 1555, AB 1641, ACA 7, AB 1672, AB 1943, AB 2565, and AB 2571 were all sent to suspense. AB 1204 drew testimony from school district leaders and coalition members who said it would worsen LCFF funding disparities by shifting future growth away from the base grant; the bill was opposed and moved to suspense. AB 1672 received support from CalPACE. The Department of Finance did not attend and had no comments on the measures. Finally, ACA 18 was presented as a constitutional amendment to double student voting seats on the UC Board of Regents, creating separate undergraduate and graduate student representation. The author and UC student witnesses said the change would strengthen student voice on issues such as tuition, housing, basic needs, and free speech, and would align UC with CSU and community college governance. There was no opposition testimony, but the committee treated ACA 18 as a suspense-file candidate and moved it to suspense without objection. The hearing then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> to administer our State financial aid to administer our State financial aid programs<00:07:03.440
• key financial aid program State financial<00:07:12.720><c> aid</c><00:07:12.960><c> program</c><00:07
• </c> which is our uh oldest financial aid which is our uh oldest financial aid program<00:07:23.919><
• Minnesota residents who may apply for state aid via that act versus FAFSA for state aid via that act
• </c> Megan Flores from our financial aid Megan Flores from our financial aid department<00:28:41.240>

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• FFLA stands for, or the tagline is, Funding Florida Legal Aid.
• First and foremost, we are not against funding legal aid.
• First and foremost, we are not against funding legal aid.
• And so I appreciate that it has funded legal aid.
• aid and to the services that are needed in this state.

Committee: Senate Banking and Insurance

Summary: The committee heard several bills and amendments, beginning with CS/SB 498 on trust fund interest for IOTA accounts. The sponsor said a 2023 Florida Supreme Court rule sharply increased interest paid into legal aid funding, creating a windfall and making participation difficult for banks. An amendment was adopted requiring savings institutions to pay the higher of 0.25% or the highest comparable rate offered on certain non-IOTA accounts, and the bill then passed favorably after testimony from banks, legal aid representatives, and other stakeholders both supporting and opposing the measure. The committee also approved CS/SB 232, which clarifies Florida’s consumer collection law applies only to phone calls during restricted hours and not emails or text messages, after a delete-all amendment and supportive testimony from industry groups. It then approved SB 132, as amended, to designate gold and silver as legal tender and set rules for custody, audits, electronic transfer, and government acceptance of payments; supporters called it a sound-money measure, while the banking association said it still had unresolved technical concerns. Later, the committee passed SB 1466 to create a trust fund for the My Safe Florida Home Program, with an amendment funding it from 20% of collected insurance premium tax revenue. It also considered SB 1206 on transportation network company insurance, reducing coverage during the “dead-leg” period before a rider is picked up from $1 million to lower limits; the bill drew sharp opposition from trial lawyers and support from insurers and some business groups, and the committee adopted a clarifying amendment before reporting the bill favorably. Finally, CS/SB 924 on fertility preservation for cancer patients was amended several times to narrow scope and clarify coverage rules, then passed favorably after debate over cost, preauthorization, and post-treatment storage obligations. The committee adjourned after allowing technical and conforming changes to implement the adopted amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• aids and hearing aid related services under the state employee health plan from 1,400 to 2,500.
• </c> coverage of hearing aids. coverage of hearing aids.
• :08.040><c> to</c> amount for hearing aids from 1,400 to amount for hearing aids from 1,400 to 2,500,
• </c><00:09:19.520><c> and</c> increases the cap on hearing aids and increases the cap on hearing aids
• :21.600><c> under</c><00:09:21.800><c> the</c> hearing aid related services under the hearing aid related

Committee: Senate Banking & Insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:06:13.080><c> component</c> areas the differentiate Aid component areas the differentiate Aid
• where's differentiated aid.
• There is a specific purpose for differentiated aid, and if somebody has differentiated aid, we can answer
• Catastrophic aid, I know, is going to be special education aid. Excuse me.
• formerly catastrophic aid.

Summary: The work session focused on special education, especially the differentiated aid component and special education aid, which members noted is still often called “catastrophic aid.” The chair said the committee was trying to better understand how special education costs are growing, how districts are delivering services through SAUs or internally, and how reimbursement formulas affect local costs. Members also discussed the need for better data before making decisions on several education funding bills, and Representative Brown was tasked with capturing questions for follow-up information from the department or elsewhere. Testimony from the state special education director, Becky Fad, centered on why student counts in various disability categories have shifted over time. She said the categories themselves have not changed much, but autism has increased because of greater understanding and identification, developmental delay has grown because it applies to children under age 10 who may not yet have a clear diagnosis, and some students previously classified under speech/language or other health impairment are now identified in more specific categories such as autism. She emphasized that the IEP is based on a child’s individual needs, so a change in category would not necessarily change services, though it may help educators support the student differently. Members asked about whether the shifts reflect better diagnostic capability, whether the department should gather more data on the reasons for the changes, and whether autism-spectrum data could be broken down further. Fad said the department does not currently have data on the causes of the shifts or on where students fall within the autism spectrum, but that collecting and analyzing such data is on its list of priorities and a new data manager had recently been hired. She also explained that each child is counted only once on the chart by primary disability, that the IEP or eligibility team determines the primary category based on evaluations, and that any child can be referred for special education by a parent, teacher, or doctor, after which the district must meet within 15 days to decide whether to evaluate. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's critical to mitigating student financial aid fraud.
• If faculty are Who don't show up prior to financial aid being dispersed.
• Financial aid integrity and institutional interests across Minnesota State.
• THIS MATTERS FOR 3 PRIMARY FIRST, FINANCIAL AID, INTEGRITY.
• THE DELAYS IN AID CAN REMAIN. FOR EVERY DIFFICULT.

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• students, and they are doing things on all aid was all aid was $14,858<00:16:38.480><c> and</c><00:16
• Um, so this 1500 student aid index.
• </c> participate in our state financial aid participate in our state financial aid programs<01:03:40.000
• And and I would just say very aid.
• </c> application and apply for financial aid application and apply for financial aid is<01:43:56.719>

Summary: The Higher Education Conference Committee reviewed differences among the Governor’s, House, and Senate proposals for state grant parameter changes and their effects on state grant spending, North Star Promise spending, and average student awards. Nonpartisan staff explained that the proposals use different combinations of parameter changes, with the Governor’s and Senate plans modeled to avoid or minimize rationing, while the House plan would require rationing to balance the program. Staff reported projected biennium balances of a positive $29.836 million for the Governor’s proposal, a negative $60.758 million for the House proposal without rationing, a positive $994,000 for the House proposal with rationing, and a positive $3.623 million for the Senate proposal; North Star Promise balances also varied, with the Senate showing a positive balance and the Governor and House with rationing showing negative balances. Staff also said the Senate proposal would extend availability of the state grant appropriation and suspend surplus procedures through fiscal year 2029, allowing the balance to carry forward. The committee then focused on the House-only tuition and fee cap provision, which would limit the tuition recognized for state grant purposes for four-year programs to the University of Minnesota Twin Cities level, with 1% annual increases in fiscal years 2026 and 2027. House members said the cap was intended to address rising tuition, especially at the University of Minnesota, and to produce savings in the state grant program. The governor’s office confirmed the provision was not included in the Governor’s bill. Representatives from the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Private College Council opposed the cap, arguing it would reduce awards for low-income students and shift costs to students rather than address underlying tuition pressures; they also said it could discourage enrollment at higher-cost institutions. Supporters from Minnesota State argued the cap would improve fairness because students at lower-tuition institutions are effectively capped lower, while students at more expensive institutions receive larger awards, and they said the legislature should intervene in a variable that has grown substantially over time. Committee members questioned how the cap would work and whether it was tied to the Twin Cities campus rate. Testifiers clarified that the state grant formula is tied to the University of Minnesota level, but because Minnesota State institutions are below that level, the cap effectively limits their students to their own lower tuition while allowing higher awards at the University of Minnesota and private colleges. No formal vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the chair indicated the committee would continue with item-by-item review of the remaining parameter changes and hear additional testimony from agencies and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, long story short, we paid the full $5,000 for the hearing aids.
• </c> thirdparty provider their hearing aid thirdparty provider their hearing aid coverage<00:10:36.720
• Appropriately fit hearing aids provide a child with access to the world around them.
• </c><00:15:35.639><c> device</c> that so um the hearing aid device that so um the hearing aid device
• </c> interval um so that the hearing aids interval um so that the hearing aids would<00:16:02.839><c>

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 27, as amended by committee substitute, which would create a Kentucky Parkinson’s disease research registry. The sponsor said the substitute was developed with UK, U of L, the Michael J. Fox Foundation, and Parkinson’s in Motion to better define a movement disorder center, add Parkinson’s experts from both universities to the advisory committee, require automated reporting, and delay implementation until 2027. Testimony emphasized the need to track diagnoses and testing while protecting confidentiality and allowing people to opt out. The committee adopted the substitute and then voted unanimously to pass SB 27 with a favorable expression. The committee then heard Senate Bill 93, dealing with hearing aid coverage for children. A parent described the high cost of hearing aids for her son and the financial burden created by insurance limits, while a pediatric audiologist explained that early identification and treatment improve language outcomes and that families can spend about $30,000 on hearing aids from birth to age 18. The committee substitute removed adults from the bill and added an in-network requirement for pediatric audiologists, along with a replacement interval consistent with Medicaid guidelines and repair/loss coverage provisions. After questions about costs, replacement timing, and insurer practices, the committee voted unanimously to pass SB 93 with a favorable expression. Finally, the committee considered Senate Bill 153, a transparency and due-process bill concerning Medicaid prepayment review. The sponsor and witnesses from Addiction Recovery Care and Frontier Behavioral Health said prepayment reviews can be imposed with little notice or explanation, disrupt cash flow, and burden rural and smaller providers; they argued the bill would require clearer notice, reasons, and timelines without stopping legitimate reviews. Members asked about managed care organizations, contract issues, and whether the bill would conflict with existing agreements, and the sponsor said it would not. After discussion and an explanation of vote from Senator Douglas, the committee voted to pass SB 153 with a favorable expression.