Transcript Highlights:

• Some are doing cost-versus-revenue analysis.
• The calculation wouldn't have changed.
• That's just a placeholder for calculations.
• That's a federally recognized way to calculate the FTE.
• So again, this is revenue neutral, and this is di- Proposal. So again, this is revenue neutral.

Summary: The Higher Ed Funding Committee met to review a proposed process for identifying and addressing low-producing academic programs, then moved into discussion of draft funding formulas for the university system. Lisa Johnson of the ND University System described how other states and systems define low-producing programs, emphasizing multi-year enrollment and completion thresholds, cost and workforce review, and the role of governing boards. She reported that North Dakota institutions already review programs in varying cycles, often use shared resources and stackable credentials to keep low-enrollment programs viable, and cited recent system actions over five years: 100 programs placed on inactivation, 75 terminated, and 384 new programs created. Committee members raised concerns about workforce-critical programs, duplication, exemptions, and whether the legislature or the State Board of Higher Education should drive the process. The chair said he wanted the board to bring a detailed proposal to the June meeting and suggested the legislature may use funding leverage, including a possible holdback, to encourage the review process. The committee then heard a Legislative Council presentation on a draft funding formula for UND and NDSU. The proposal used fall census FTE enrollment, with a placeholder rate of $7,000 per undergraduate FTE and $10,500 per graduate/professional FTE, plus incentives for completions in high-demand fields and research productivity. Alex from Legislative Council explained that the formula also included separate treatment for research funding, external grants, and capital building tiers, and that the MD program at UND would remain fixed funding outside the formula. Members questioned the use of the placeholder rates, the in-demand program list, the treatment of external grants, and how the proposal compared with current appropriations. The chair noted that the formula numbers were illustrative and not final budget amounts. A second draft formula for the other nine institutions was also reviewed. It used fall census FTE with no weighted economic factor, a higher undergraduate rate of $8,750 per FTE, and completion incentives for in-demand credentials and all other credentials. Members noted that the proposal would benefit some institutions, such as Bismarck State College, while reducing funding for others, such as Mayville State, and questioned whether the same structure should apply across institutions with very different missions and sizes. Committee discussion focused on fairness, hold-harmless concerns, and whether the nine institutions should be grouped differently. The committee did not take formal action, but the chair indicated the formulas would continue to be discussed later in the meeting and in future work.

Transcript Highlights:

• These figures will be used to determine two multipliers, the highest of which will be used to calculate
• The calculation will be done annually, with the first calculation occurring in December of 2026.
• It's 1% that will come from the calculation of the market pay enhancement, which is based on salaries
• It's a new special revenue sub-fund of the Economic Development Project Fund, which is overseen by the
• Senate Bill 842 is a supplemental appropriation that increases special revenue spending authority in

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee met with a quorum present and first approved the minutes from the prior meeting. It then reconsidered Committee Substitute for House Bill 5212, noting that an Education Committee amendment had been inadvertently omitted the day before; the vice chairman withdrew the prior motion to report the bill, and the committee returned to the bill with the technical Education Committee amendments pending. The transcript then moved through a long agenda of bills and supplemental appropriations, with the committee generally hearing brief explanations from counsel, occasional member questions, and then voting to adopt amendments and report measures to the full Senate. Among the substantive policy bills, the committee advanced House Bill 4007 on the Industrial Access Road Fund, allowing an additional possible $3 million transfer in a fiscal year, expanding eligible uses, and increasing county/municipal spending limits; House Bill 4765, which raises salaries for state police, teachers, and school service personnel and, via a strike-and-insert amendment, creates a market pay enhancement tied to county and regional income data; House Bill 5162, recodifying tax lien sale procedures and clarifying ownership and government-property tax treatment; House Bill 5382, extending the Neighborhood Investment Tax Credit Program to July 1, 2031; House Bill 5685, authorizing up to $150 million in revenue bonds backed by excess lottery funds for State Culture Center improvements; House Joint Resolution 42, placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot to raise the homestead exemption from $20,000 to $40,000; House Bill 4010, creating an airport hangar grant program and fund; House Bill 4404, increasing from $500 to $5,000 the amount volunteer fire departments may spend on training and fire prevention materials; House Bill 4592, requiring standardized campus safety mapping data for higher education institutions; House Bill 4784, extending and making retroactive a qualified opportunity zone business tax modification; and House Bill 5088, increasing retirement benefits for Division of Natural Resources police officers, with a one-time $4.25 million cash injection. The committee also reported several supplemental appropriations and originating bills, including Senate Bill 842 for the Spay Neuter Assistance Fund, Senate Bill 846 for Culture and History capital repairs, Senate Bill 872 for Natural Resources capital repairs (reduced to $10 million in committee substitute), Senate Bill 876 for Department of Health facilities, Senate Originating Bills 1 through 5 covering Culture and History, road funds, corrections IT and services, tobacco education, and the Adjutant General’s armory board transfer, respectively. Most items were adopted by voice vote; House Bill 4765’s strike-and-insert amendment was adopted after a division vote of 10-6. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:57.759><c> to</c> up some of the uh decline in Revenue to up some of the uh decline in Revenue
• Bell, it causes some real complexities relative to the calculation.
• Bell, it causes some real complexities relative to the calculation.
• All of that is calculations, and if you're wrong, then what?
• We need to have those revenue streams, but this is not the right way to do it.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And we calculate what the previous for the current year.
• In case we were not able to generate the revenue to cover the loss.
• So what is my explain a little bit about how the retention is calculated.
• The formula used to calculate retention is outlined directly in statute.
• Of the looking at slide tend those last calculations are those last calculations based on internal calculations

Transcript Highlights:

• calculation.
• </c><00:32:09.519><c> calculation</c><00:32:10.519><c> the</c> our compensatory Revenue calculation the
• our compensatory Revenue calculation the governor<00:32:11.000><c> is</c><00:32:11.200><c> recommending
• </c><00:32:30.799><c> in</c> to build into the calculation in to build into the calculation in addition
• calculations and determine if we are able to find a more consistent calculation that would reduce some

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So depending on the final calculation, So depending on the final calculation for 2024-25 at certification
• The LAO explained to us today that for every dollar of revenue, either above our expected revenue or
• That only is the case if we actually see that revenue. Exactly.
• Because fixed costs have gone up higher than the revenue.
• , not even an increase in revenue.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance met for its annual Proposition 98 overview, with Chair Alvarez outlining the committee’s focus on K-12 funding, student outcomes, and use of one-time funds. Superintendent Tony Thurmond gave an update on education issues, including wildfire recovery support for affected school communities, ongoing concerns about federal threats to education funding and immigration enforcement, progress on literacy and math, dual-language immersion, educator housing, and support for dual enrollment. Members broadly expressed support for these priorities, while also raising concerns about implementation, funding stability, and the need for schools to remain safe places for students. The committee then reviewed the Governor’s Proposition 98 proposal. The Department of Finance said the 2025-26 Proposition 98 guarantee is projected at $118.9 billion, with higher revenues and TK-related rebenching driving the increase. The LAO said the budget adds about $7.5 billion over two years and discussed the volatility of the guarantee, especially in 2024-25, when changes in revenue could have an outsized effect on school funding. Members questioned the proposed $1.6 billion delayed settle-up payment, the legal basis for delaying it, and the impact of possible federal funding freezes. The LAO presented alternatives such as a reserve deposit or delayed disbursement, while Finance said the proposal is intended to manage uncertainty. Members also raised concerns that ethnic studies implementation was not funded in the January budget, and Finance said the administration was not proposing funding for it. The committee next heard on the Proposition 98 rainy day fund and education deferrals. Finance said the reserve would receive a mandatory deposit of about $1.2 billion in 2024-25 and a discretionary deposit of $376 million in 2025-26, leaving a balance of about $1.5 billion. The LAO supported rebuilding the reserve as a way to manage volatility. On deferrals, Finance described the Governor’s plan to eliminate remaining deferrals by 2025-26, and the LAO said paying them off improves cash flow and budget resilience. Members generally supported eliminating deferrals and rebuilding reserves, though some asked about acting earlier if revenues allow. The committee also reviewed the proposed $1.8 billion student support and professional development block grant; Finance said it would fund professional development, recruitment and retention, and dual enrollment, while the LAO recommended clearer language on local discretion and use for one-time costs. Members were divided, with some supporting flexibility and others warning that one-time block grants can create instability and confusion for districts.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, they were trying to keep it revenue neutral.
• . trying to keep it revenue neutral.
• It's actually it's not revenue neutral.
• These funds sales and use tax revenues.
• </c><00:23:17.920><c> when</c> to estimate expected revenues when to estimate expected revenues when

Bills: SF0052

Keywords: wildlife management, environmental restoration, funding, invasive species, aquatic ecosystems, native fish, habitat conservation, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You may remember that the underlying bill had a revenue distribution that was different from current
• In each fiscal year, the first $25 million of CCA auction revenue would go into the operating account
• Then the remainder of CCA revenue each year would go 68% to the carbon emissions reduction account.
• After it hits that cap, the rest of that portion of the revenue would go to the capital account.
• That anticipated revenue increase would move that fee collection to over $28 million.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee met in executive session on three bills. For House Bill 2159, which creates the pre-K Promise account for ECEAP, the committee adopted Amendment Clark 333 to clarify that account funds may support any children enrolled in ECEAP, not just the entitlement population. Members spoke in support of the bill as expanding early learning access, and the substitute bill was reported out with a due pass recommendation by a 29-0 vote, with two members excused. For House Bill 2251, dealing with Climate Commitment Act account structure and revenue distribution, staff briefed the proposed substitute and two offered amendments from Representative Dye. Both Dye amendments were rejected: one would have expanded allowable uses to include items such as buoys, trails, small forest landowner grants, drought and water quality projects, outdoor recreation, and marina support; the other would have restored annual rather than biennial reporting on CCA spending. Supporters said the bill would simplify and clarify CCA budgeting and better align spending with declining revenues, while opponents argued it did not sufficiently prioritize climate resiliency and accountability. The substitute bill was reported out with a due pass recommendation by an 18-12 vote, with one excused. For House Bill 2521, which would let the Washington State Patrol set firearm background check fees to cover program costs, the committee considered seven amendments. All seven were rejected: proposals to cap the fee increase at $20, exempt low-income residents, people near least restrictive alternative placements, veterans and active military, domestic violence victims, and residents of counties with fewer officers per capita, and to delay the effective date until Washington no longer has the fewest officers per capita nationwide. Supporters of the bill said the fee should be cost-based to avoid subsidizing the program with general funds and to prevent delays in background checks; opponents argued the bill created an open-ended fee increase and financial barrier to a constitutional right. The bill was reported out with a due pass recommendation by an 18-12 vote, with one excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• And even though that revenue growth is slowing, we are still projecting moderate revenue growth well
• Um, much of the revenue, much of the other state funds revenue, 11 thing I wanted to point out on this
• Department of Health revenue sources, most federal revenues and DOH are in the public health and epidemiology
• A portion Does get Medicaid revenue and so there is a significant amount of federal Medicaid revenue
• Um, or matches the state for federal revenue.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do that first September 1st calculation, then we do an October 1st calculation for Dr so that we say
• </c> that first September 1st calculation that first September 1st calculation then<01:19:02.600><c>
• </c> then we do an October 1st calculation then we do an October 1st calculation for<01:19:04.440><c>
• <01:21:51.440><c> the</c> calculate the calculate the municipalities<01:21:53.880><c> state</c><01:21
• Revenue Revenue contribution<01:31:48.159><c> you</c><01:31:48.320><c> know</c><01:31:48.520><c> maybe

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:

• I'm a calculator. I don't have my cellphone. Let me borrow your calculator box. It's a lot.
• Revenue has gone up in the state of Oklahoma.
• As of right now, it's not necessarily from lack of revenues or an economic downturn or from lost revenues
• HJR1053 would require county clerks to calculate this revenue neutral rate.
• Does that then mean that my local schools lose out in this revenue neutral calculation?

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill is estimated to reduce state revenues.
• There is no impact to state revenue.
• There is no impact to state revenue.
• There is no impact to state revenue.
• This amendment would eliminate the revenue impact for fiscal year 26 and proportionally reduce the revenue

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee met in executive session on March 2, 2026, and worked through two large groups of bills, hearing staff briefings, caucusing, and then voting each measure out to the Rules Committee. In the first group, the committee advanced bills on state accounts (HB 2675, with an amendment creating an adult day service facilities account), immigrant worker protections (2SHB 2105, after adopting a striker and Amendment 8 while rejecting amendments that would have changed enforcement and private rights of action), voting rights compliance (E3SHB 1710, with all proposed amendments rejected), AI content provenance and notices (E2SHB 1170, with Amendment 19 adopted to exempt state/local/tribal governments and certain video-game and technical uses), public official protections (2SHB 233, with a technical amendment adopted), WOTEC civil service coverage (HB 2249), JLARC work plan changes (HB 2120), LEOFF Plan 1 termination/restatement (E2SHB 2034, with several amendments adopted including creation of a pension surplus holding account and study directives, while proposals to redirect funds to the Climate Commitment Act or provide a lump-sum payment were rejected or withdrawn), supplemental retirement bargaining (HB 1069, with a striker adopted), port employee retirement exclusions (EHB 2179, with a striker adopted), local government revenue flexibility (ESHB 2442, with Amendment 72 adopted to remove a county public utility tax and other amendments rejected), wildfire mitigation funding (SHB 2089), and timberland REET changes (HB 1983). The committee also noted that it would not take action on some items in the packet, including SHB 1833. In the second group, the committee advanced bills on local housing tax remittance programs (ESHB 1717), renewable energy tax incentives and grants (E3SHB 1960, with a striking amendment adopted that adjusted rates, timing, and related provisions), nonprofit fundraising hall property tax relief (HB 2431), food bank sales tax relief (SB 6006), local tax increment financing (E2SHB 2451), temporary staffing services for nonprofit behavioral health entities (SB 6297), school and child care-related sales tax exemptions (SSB 6351, with a substitute adopted and the competing amendment made out of order), behavioral health work group extension and leadership council creation (2SHB 2429), Working Connections Child Care changes (SB 6353, with Amendment 43 adopted), language access guidelines for state agencies (SHB 2475), unpaid wage recovery (2SHB 2479), firearms background check fee authority (HB 2521, briefed but not acted on in the portion provided), public employee information sharing (HB 2091, briefed but not acted on in the portion provided), and Office of Independent Investigations jurisdiction changes (ESHB 2508, briefed but not acted on in the portion provided). Throughout the meeting, members and staff discussed fiscal notes, implementation costs, and whether amendments would increase or reduce state impacts, with several amendments aimed at narrowing scope, delaying implementation, or shifting enforcement and funding responsibilities.

Transcript Highlights:

• And if we don't generate enough revenue, we have to refund them.
• And if we don't generate enough revenue, we have to refund them.
• That's my general revenue.
• That's my general revenue.
• , and the revenue streams are limited there, right?

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• Find my calculator. I don't have my cell phone. Here, let me borrow your calculator. It's a lot.
• It's not necessarily from lack of revenues or an economic downturn or from lost revenues even from the
• and applying a revenue-neutral ad valorem tax rate.
• H.J.R. 1053 would require county clerks to calculate this revenue-neutral rate.
• Does that then mean that my local schools lose out in this revenue-neutral calculation?

Summary: The committee heard and advanced a series of bills and resolutions, many involving taxes, education funding, health policy, and election rules. Representative Newton’s HB 1823, on the Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency’s home-building activities, passed 10-0. Speaker Hilbert’s HB 2425, which would align Oklahoma election dates more closely with Texas and move some elections to March, passed 9-2 after debate about turnout and accountability. HB 4440, requiring Medicaid work requirements to track federal law, passed 10-2 amid discussion of chronic unemployment and the limits of changing Medicaid expansion because it is in the Constitution. HJR 1087, a major proposal to restructure the T-SET tobacco settlement trust and redirect funds toward higher education and related uses, passed 12-0 after extensive debate over venture capital investing, public health spending, and whether the trust should be modernized. The committee also took up several property-tax measures. HJR 1053 would create a revenue-neutral ad valorem framework, requiring local approval for increases beyond prior-year levels; it passed 9-2. HJR 1054 would exempt business inventory from ad valorem taxation, and after questions about scope and possible abuse it passed 9-2. HJR 1044 would lower the annual cap on growth in assessed value for homestead and agricultural property from 3% to 2%; it passed 9-2. HB 4145 would raise the homestead exemption from $1,000 to $7,000 and passed 9-1. HJR 1081 would freeze ad valorem taxes for qualifying seniors and passed 8-1. The committee also advanced HB 3891, a county commissioner pay bill, after title was struck and members discussed its impact on small counties; it passed 9-2. Other measures included HB 1770, directing an elk population study by Oklahoma State University, which passed 11-0; HB 1675, requiring youth camps to complete site-specific hazardous assessments, which passed 11-0; HB 3627, allowing the State Committee of Blind Vendors to meet by video conference due to quorum issues, which passed 11-0; HB 3472, expanding tire-recycling fund eligibility, which passed 10-1; and HB 1225, barring changes to the biological sex designation on birth certificates, which passed 8-2 after debate over medical, legal, and equal-protection concerns. The committee also advanced HJR 1019, a heavily amended proposal concerning party nominations for general elections, after striking title and narrowing the scope to federal, state, and county races; it passed 8-1 with two not voting. HB 3462, updating plumbing licensing law and aligning exam standards with other trades, passed 9-0 after title was struck to accommodate further negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• that go into uh the calculations that go into uh the calculation<01:09:05.400><c> for</c><01:09:05.600
• </c><01:09:28.400><c> our</c> reimbursement basis for calculating our reimbursement basis for calculating
• </c> formulas that will drive the calculation formulas that will drive the calculation um<01:09:37.199
• How do you calculate that?
• ><c> up</c><01:20:47.440><c> to</c> how do you calculate up to how do you calculate up to 2029<01:20:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 1017 by Blanco, relating to authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds for certain capital
• Senate Bill 1023 by Bettencourt, relating to the calculation of certain ad valorem tax rates, to Local
• Court relating to the calculation of certain ad valorum tax rates to local government.
• Senate Bill 1051 by Hinojosa of Hidalgo, relating to the calculation of certain ad valorem tax rates.
• Senate Bill 1095 by Blanco, relating to authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds for...

Summary: The Senate met briefly and referred a large number of first-reading bills and resolutions to standing committees. The measures covered a wide range of topics, including hemp regulation, dementia research funding, parental rights and public education, municipal library funding, tax and local government issues, criminal justice, health care, education, transportation, natural resources, and election law. Several constitutional resolutions were also referred, including proposals related to the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and a severance tax revenue fund. Most of the transcript consists of the reading of bill captions and committee referrals, with no substantive debate or testimony recorded. The listed measures included proposals on school uniforms, charter schools, Medicaid fraud remedies, insurance practices, occupational licensing for people with criminal convictions, water and sewer utility cybersecurity, agricultural protections, public meeting broadcasting, and various local and state governance matters. No votes were taken on the bills in this segment. The only formal action reflected was referral of the bills and resolutions to the appropriate committees, followed by adjournment of the Senate until the next scheduled meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• to recover those revenues.
• What we want is to find alternatives... sources of revenue, alternative tax, non-property tax revenue
• that revenue on the enterprise.
• in the cap calculation.
• Further, inclusion of all revenue sources as a basis for the calculation ignores the already existing

Bills: HB26, HB73, SB 14, HB46

Keywords: HB26, law enforcement contracts, sheriff, constable, county commissioners court, commissioners court, private security, special law enforcement district, property owners association, POA, municipal utility district, school district, junior college district, local government, contract policing, supplemental police services, large counties, population over 3.3 million, Texas Local Government Code, Harris County

Transcript Highlights:

• So, quick calculation I did for the $400,000 house that we talked about.
• I think can calculate for this group.
• </c> is in terms of where the real revenues is in terms of where the real revenues come<00:18:03.840>
• Department of Revenue uh for um uh to Department of Revenue uh for um uh to for<00:49:53.680><c> the<
• </c> forward in the interim in revenue forward in the interim in revenue particularly<00:54:20.160><c

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> with</c><00:26:10.640><c> less</c> lost significant revenue with less lost significant revenue with
• </c> Council with the Department of Revenue Council with the Department of Revenue Administration.<00
• </c><00:57:12.400><c> in</c> unreasonably deprived of revenue in unreasonably deprived of revenue in
• </c> raise some local property tax revenue raise some local property tax revenue for<01:01:20.079><c>
• </c> the state did is it had a calculation the state did is it had a calculation for<02:35:32.479><c>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There’s a calculation that they use.
• There's a calculation that they use.
• So it is coming in from the $7.50 charge, and revenue, the Department of Revenue, pardon me, puts it
• of Revenue, pardon me, puts it into this fund.
• So you calculate that out over a month; that's $600 a month.

Summary: The committee first met in executive session and adopted a House Committee substitute combining House Bills 2592, 2834, and 2787 into one measure. The combined substitute was then voted do pass by a unanimous roll call, recorded as 15 ayes and 0 noes after a brief correction to the tally. The committee then heard House Bill 1786, which would raise the Highway Patrol’s spending threshold for purchasing vehicles, watercraft, aircraft, and related specialized equipment without returning to the legislature from $100,000 to $500,000. The sponsor and Highway Patrol witnesses said the current cap is outdated because boats, armored vehicles, bomb trucks, and aircraft equipment now cost far more than $100,000, while members asked about inflation, the revolving fund, and whether a lower increase might be more appropriate. No opposition testimony was offered. Next, House Bill 2885 was heard. It would redirect the first $1 million in annual boat registration fee revenue away from general revenue and into the Missouri Water Patrol Division. The sponsor and Highway Patrol said registration revenue has declined while operating costs have risen, and the division needs the money to support enforcement, search and rescue, dive operations, and boating safety programs. Members asked how much revenue is collected and whether the change would affect other programs; testimony indicated the bill would mainly earmark existing revenue rather than increase overall department funding. The committee also heard House Bill 2694, which would exempt four fee-supported funds from the end-of-biennium sweep to general revenue: the Highway Patrol Academy Fund, the State Forensic Laboratory Account, the Boiler and Pressure Vessels Safety Fund, and the Elevator Safety Fund. The sponsor and Department of Public Safety witnesses said the sweeps make long-term planning difficult and can disrupt training, lab support, and safety inspection operations, though members raised concerns about excess balances, guardrails, and whether fee reductions should be considered if reserves grow too large. Finally, House Bill 1712 was heard; it would make intentionally failing to charge an electronic monitoring device a crime, closing a loophole in existing tampering law. The sponsor, a sheriff, and other witnesses said the bill addresses deliberate attempts to evade monitoring, while members discussed battery warnings, rural access to electricity, and the costs and benefits of pretrial release. No votes were taken on the later bills before the committee adjourned.