Transcript Highlights:

• Source of funds. One 2,300,2,300,000. Source of funds. One 2,300,2,300,000. Source of funds.
• Source of funds 1,518,639. Source of funds 1,518,639.
• Source of funds. industries program. Source of funds. industries program. Source of funds.
• Source of funds. One, state program. Source of funds. One, state program. Source of funds.
• Source of quarter of the fiscal year. Source of quarter of the fiscal year. Source of funds.

Bills: SJR 59, SCR 30, SCR 46, SB 31, SB 127, SB 324, SB 401, SB 407, SB 467, SB 482, SB 506, SB 529, SB 584, SB 619, SB 636, SB 646, SB 647, SB 659, SB 715, SB 732, SB 735, SB 771, SB 784, SB 800, SB 801, SB 816, SB 1013, SB 1026, SB 1049, SB 1055, SB 1065, SB 1137, SB 1169, SB 1181, SB 1383, SB 1395, SB 1410, SB 1433, SB 1524, SB 1531, SB 1568, SB 1640, SB 1666, SB 1681, SB 1718, SB 1754, SB 1757, SB 1972, SB 1980, SB 2004, SB 2007, SB 2041, SB 2046, SB 2050, SB 2075, SB 2076, SB 2154, SB 2173, SB 2206, SB 2225, SB 2253, SB 2268, SB 2306, SB 2308, SB 2314, SB 2322, SB 2330, SB 2351, SB 2366, SB 2371, SB 2392, SB 2398, SB 2476, SB 2533, SB 2540, SB 2544, SB 2589, SB 2610, SB 2623, SB 2660, SB 2662, SB 2693, SB 2707, SB 2717, SB 2722, SB 2742, SB 2753, SB 2779, SB 2807, SB 2843, SB 2844, SB 2858, SB 2877, SB 2880, SB 2885, SB 2920, SB 2938, SB 2986, HJR 4, HCR 35, SJR 3, SJR 18, SB 5, SB 260, SB 1786, SB 914, SB 963, SB 1197, SB 1415, SB 1437, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 63, SJR 84, SJR 59, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 46, SCR 48, SCR 19, SCR 30, SCR 3, SB 2023, SB 1433, SB 2322, SB 2877, SB 407, SB 1718, SB 1395, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 1502, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1434, SB 1376, SB 1585, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1163, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 732, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1436, SB 287, SB 261, SB 1882, SB 393, SB 1791, SB 529, SB 209, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 510, SB 2253, SB 584, SB 1085, SB 2314, SB 2046, SB 1975, SB 2717, SB 1262, SB 1524, SB 1137, SB 636, SB 2056, SB 884, SB 517, SB 1200, SB 1410, SB 1845, SB 1863, SB 2681, SB 2200, SB 2199, SB 1757, SB 2050, SB 2458, SB 2201, SB 1055, SB 2660, SB 2662, SB 1065, SB 801, SB 2533, SB 3014, SB 3013, SB 758, SB 647, SB 1721, SB 2268, SB 2366, SB 1013, SB 2797, SB 2371, SB 2383, SB 646, SB 1169, SB 1754, SB 2779, SB 2004, SB 2119, SB 2448, SB 1777, SB 1283, SB 2392, SB 2076, SB 2786, SB 2876, SB 2284, SB 2225, SB 1540, SB 2920, SB 2929, SB 1972, SB 2540, SB 2742, SB 2595, SB 2217, SB 715, SB 2330, SB 1383, SB 500, SB 1640, SB 2001, SB 2080, SB 2722, SB 506, SB 2514, SB 2623, SB 2753, SB 2398, SB 1241, SB 2927, SB 2173, SB 2538, SB 898, SB 467, SB 1449, SB 2529, SB 1531, SB 2846, SB 2476, SB 986, SB 1181, SB 2075, SB 2154, SB 2864, SB 31, SB 2880, SB 1359, SB 2386, SB 771, SB 2844, SB 2550, SB 1351, SB 1423, SB 1931, SB 2245, SB 2589, SB 2707, SB 2807, SB 2351, SB 410, SB 659, SB 816, SB 2776, SB 2693, SB 2580, SB 1980, SB 1886, SB 1234, SB 739, SB 482, SB 456, SB 127, SB 1666, SB 2843, SB 2801, SB 800, SB 2055, SB 784, SB 2986, SB 735, SB 1012, SB 324, SB 2926, SB 2938, SB 2007, SB 2138, SB 1242, SB 2615, SB 1049, SB 2310, SB 1224, SB 2972, SB 1568, SB 2841, SB 2885, SB 3016, SB 2858, SB 2610, SB 2139, SB 1856, SB 2035, SB 2308, SB 2306, SB 2041, SB 1528, SB 1681, SB 1141, SB 2401, SB 2530, SB 2375, SB 547, SB 1266, SB 1373, SB 1467, SB 2069, SB 2269, SB 2480, SB 2544, SB 672, SB 904, SB 2695, SB 2891, SB 2422, SB 2543, SB 1854, SB 317, SB 2539, SB 2532, SB 2925, SB 1250, SB 2082, SB 2203, SB 457, SB 2357, HJR 4, HB 135, HB 1109, HCR 35, HCR 64, SB 2721, SB 243, SB 1285, SB 2568, SB 1959, SB 1442, SB 1454, SB 2520, SB 2541, SB 1708, SB 1237, SB 1844, SB 1586, SB 1, SB 260, SB 31, SB 467, SB 482, SB 647, SB 732, SB 816, SB 1055, SB 1137, SB 1169, SB 2004, SB 2253, SB 2268, SB 2314, SB 2351, SB 2371, SB 2623, SB 2722, SB 2779, SB 2920, HJR 4, SB 407, SB 1395, SB 1433, SB 1718, SB 2322, SB 2877, SB 619, SB 646, SB 1026, SB 2742, SB 2880, SR 443, SR 449, SR 456, SR 460, SR 465, SCR 46, SB 260, SB 3062, HJR 8, HJR 31, HJR 72, HJR 99, HJR 133, HB 29, HB 33, HB 50, HB 107, HB 116, HB 125, HB 140, HB 141, HB 155, HB 171, HB 227, HB 255, HB 363, HB 368, HB 491, HB 609, HB 630, HB 745, HB 767, HB 913, HB 917, HB 1135, HB 1188, HB 1238, HB 1242, HB 1261, HB 1318, HB 1404, HB 1495, HB 1507, HB 1606, HB 1708, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2002, HB 2003, HB 2198, HB 2355, HB 2358, HB 2415, HB 2457, HB 2495, HB 2546, HB 2637, HB 2763, HB 2765, HB 2798, HB 2818, HB 3228, HB 3307, HB 4116, HCR 29, SB 1410, SB 3062, HJR 8, HJR 31, HJR 72, HJR 99, HJR 133, HB 29, HB 33, HB 50, HB 107, HB 116, HB 125, HB 140, HB 141, HB 155, HB 171, HB 227, HB 255, HB 363, HB 368, HB 491, HB 609, HB 630, HB 745, HB 767, HB 913, HB 917, HB 1135, HB 1188, HB 1238, HB 1242, HB 1261, HB 1318, HB 1404, HB 1495, HB 1507, HB 1606, HB 1708, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2002, HB 2003, HB 2198, HB 2355, HB 2358, HB 2415, HB 2457, HB 2495, HB 2546, HB 2637, HB 2763, HB 2765, HB 2798, HB 2818, HB 3228, HB 3307, HB 4116, HCR 29, SB 1410

Keywords: education funding, Texas State Technical College System, capital projects, infrastructure, higher education, Birding Capital, Matagorda County, wildlife, conservation, Texas Legislature, Texas beef, cattle industry, agricultural heritage, Texas strip steak, economic growth, SB 31, Life of the Mother Act, Texas abortion law, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment

Transcript Highlights:

• You get to other sources.
• their number two source?
• , what was your secondary source?
• Ad valorem is your number one revenue source, what was your secondary source?
• single revenue source, it turns out it's the largest single revenue Single revenue source, it turns

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for a listening session focused on a presentation by Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research on local government revenues and expenditures. Baker reviewed statewide financial data for counties, municipalities, and independent special districts, using 2018-19 as a baseline year because it was stable and pre-COVID. She explained that counties rely heavily on taxes, with ad valorem taxes making up about 73% of county tax revenue and about 24% of total county revenues statewide, while municipalities rely more on charges for services and have a lower statewide ad valorem share of about 14.7%. She also noted wide variation across local governments, with some counties and cities highly dependent on property taxes and others using them minimally or not at all. Special districts were shown to be very different from counties and cities, with hospital-related revenues and expenditures dominating many of them, while water management districts were more reliant on ad valorem taxes and focused expenditures on the physical environment. Baker also summarized expenditure patterns: counties spent the largest share on public safety, while municipalities spent the largest share on general government services, followed by physical environment and public safety. She emphasized that local government structures vary widely and that the committee should study what characteristics are associated with greater property tax reliance. She said the next research steps would be to extend the analysis through later years, including the COVID and inflation period, and to examine institutional and legal factors that shape local fiscal structures. Members asked about unfunded mandates, fuel taxes, reserves, school taxes, millage rates, and how property taxes relate to specific services such as police and fire. Baker said the current analysis did not yet account for mandates or school taxes and that further work could examine links between revenues and expenditures, commercial versus residential tax burdens, and other factors. After the presentation, members reported back on local meetings with counties and municipalities. Several described large differences in millage rates, revenue mixes, and the impact of any property tax changes on fiscally constrained counties versus larger, wealthier ones. Concerns were raised about how local governments would replace lost revenue, especially for public safety and emergency response, and members discussed the need to consider both revenue replacement and ways to rein in spending. The co-chairs said the committee would continue gathering information, send members follow-up homework and requests for panel suggestions, and invite additional input from constituents, stakeholders, and local governments. The meeting ended with no votes or formal actions beyond adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• ONE BY THE REACH OFFICE AND WILL BUY CAREER SOURCE. CAN HEAR ME NOW.
• NEXT ADRIENNE JOHNSON CAREER SOURCE FLORIDA CEO. WELCOME.
• CAREER SOURCE FLORIDA PROGRAMS ARE DESIGNED TO SERVE TWO PRIMARY CUSTOMERS.
• CAREER SOURCE FLORIDA DID RECEIVE A WAIVER FOR THAT.
• CAREER SOURCE FLORIDA DOES TAKE ON A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE MARKETING.

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving into revenue sources, as I mentioned, there are three primary sources and then a number of other
• Moving into revenue sources, as I mentioned, there are three primary sources and then a number of other
• And then, rounding out the discussion of funding sources, some amounts are shown from the various sources
• <00:22:24.720> you bit different from a revenue Source you bit different from a revenue Source
• <00:24:44.640> um out the discussion of funding sources um out the discussion of funding sources

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Transportation Working Group met on January 15, 2025, with Chair John Kosnik opening by saying the committee expected to pass a transportation bill this year and emphasizing efficient use of transportation revenues, maintenance of roads and transit, and safety. Members and staff introduced themselves, and several representatives noted their interest in roads, bridges, and regional transportation needs. Kosnik also said he had spoken with Representative Kel about leadership arrangements and stressed that bipartisan support would be needed for a transportation bill. House Fiscal Staff’s Andrew Lee and House Research’s Matt Burus then gave an overview of transportation finance, focusing mainly on highways and transit. Burus explained Minnesota’s highway funding structure, including the constitutional Highway User Tax Distribution Fund and the related Trunk Highway Fund, County State-Aid Highway Fund, and Municipal State-Aid Street Fund. He reviewed the main revenue sources: the motor fuels tax, motor vehicle registration tax, motor vehicle sales tax, portions of the general sales tax tied to auto parts, vehicle rentals and leases, and the retail delivery fee. He noted several changes from 2023 legislation, including indexing of the gas tax, creation of the Transportation Advancement Account, and the retail delivery fee, which began in July 2024 and therefore would affect fiscal year 2025 rather than the fiscal 2024 data shown. The presentation also covered how highway dollars flow through constitutional formulas, including the 95/5 split from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, with the 5 percent set-aside used for town roads, town bridges, and flexible highway purposes such as turnbacks. Burus distinguished trunk highway bonds from general obligation bonds and explained that both are debt-financing tools for transportation projects, but with different repayment sources and uses. No votes or formal actions were taken at this informational meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we call that sourcing.
• So really quickly, sourcing services, a reminder that sales tax is generally sourced to where the good
• How would that be sourced?
• How would that be sourced?
• So now sourcing changes.

Summary: The committee first received a presentation from Dr. Reich on the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council (ERFC), including how the council’s joint executive-legislative forecasting process works, the main state revenue sources, and recent economic conditions. He said Washington’s economy is slowing, with weak employment growth, softer taxable sales, and uncertainty from tariffs, federal spending, and the federal shutdown. He also noted that the September forecast was reduced, mainly because of lower sales tax and real estate excise tax collections, and that the state still expects modest growth rather than a recession. Members asked about whether Washington tends to lag national downturns and how forecast information should affect budgeting; Dr. Reich said the forecast is a revenue tool, not a budgeting decision, and that spending choices remain with elected officials. The Department of Revenue then presented on Washington’s sales and use tax structure and the implementation of Senate Bill 5814, which expands retail sales tax to several services effective October 1, 2025. Steve Ewing explained how sales and use tax are sourced, how reseller permits and the multiple points of use exemption work, and how the new law applies to live presentations, temporary staffing, investigations and security services, IT services, custom website development, advertising services, and custom software. He said DOR held listening sessions, issued interim guidance, and set up a centralized landing page and outreach efforts to help taxpayers understand the changes. He also described a six-month grace period for certain pre-existing contracts through March 31, 2026, but said penalties and interest still apply under the statute. Committee members raised concerns about how businesses and individuals will know when a service is taxable, who is responsible for collecting and remitting tax, and how sourcing will work for services delivered across multiple locations or online. DOR staff walked through examples involving accounting services, live lectures, virtual events, advertising campaigns, and search engine marketing, including the use of reasonable allocation and pool codes when exact sourcing data is unavailable. Members also questioned the administrative burden on small businesses and professionals newly subject to tax, and whether additional legislative fixes or relief from penalties and interest may be needed. No votes or formal actions were taken in the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• So these are the top five sources.
• It's the main source.
• So my takeaway is all of the major sources, minor sources are all growing, and growing according, and
• Slide 13, you briefly mentioned the remaining margin of sources.
• three sources that saw negative change.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Finance and Tax convened with a quorum present, heard an introductory presentation of committee staff, and then received a staff briefing from Azar Khan on Florida’s state tax structure and revenue outlook. The presentation covered fiscal year 2023-2024 revenues, noting more than $127 billion in total state revenue, with general revenue exceeding $48 billion and sales and use tax making up the largest share. It also compared Florida’s tax burden to other states, highlighted Florida’s low per-capita revenue ranking and strong business formation numbers, and reviewed major and minor revenue sources, tax rates, and the revenue estimating conference process. Members asked about what drives revenue growth, including population, tourism, construction, and auto sales, and about Florida’s regressivity, corporate income tax participation, and investment earnings on state balances. Khan said the state’s revenue picture remains positive and stable, but that future growth is slower than during the COVID-era spike; he also explained that some negative forecast changes were tied to legislative actions such as the insurance premium tax credit, while others reflected lower tobacco consumption and severance activity. He noted that revenue and spending forecasts are separate and that budget-side growth is driving concerns raised in other state economic projections. The committee also discussed possible tax package ideas for the upcoming session, including tax holidays and homeowner relief, but no specific proposals were acted on. The chair announced the committee would not meet the following week and that the next meeting would be in week three of February. The meeting concluded with no objections to a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then a little terminology about our fund sources. Thank you.
• and 3% or less of spending from all fund sources.
• Is that source, funding source, through academic division of academic facilities and transportation?
• Is that source, funding source, through academic division of academic facilities and transportation?
• which fund sources and revenues are making up expenditures.

Summary: The joint education committee continued its adequacy study with a detailed Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, covering how Arkansas school districts and charters spend foundation and other funds on matrix and non-matrix items. Staff explained the methodology for mapping expenditures, the district and school categories used in the analysis, and key findings showing that districts spend more per student from all fund sources than the foundation amount alone. The presentation highlighted that classroom teachers account for the largest share of matrix spending, while operations and maintenance, student support staff, nurses, and other lines also drew significant attention. Members asked for additional breakdowns by district type, size, rural/urban status, and trend data, and several questions focused on how waivers affect funding and spending, especially for library media specialists and other positions. The committee then discussed non-matrix spending, including instructional aids, non-technology-related facilities, school safety, mental health services, dyslexia support, food service, gifted and talented, career and technical education, and other items not explicitly defined in the matrix. Staff reported that non-matrix spending exceeded $2 billion in 2025, with most of it coming from other fund sources, and that the top superintendent-identified unmet needs over recent surveys were mental health services, school safety, and dyslexia support. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, possible over-identification, and whether some support costs are being coded in ways that obscure the true spending picture. There was also discussion of facilities funding, the building fund, and the Department of Education’s partnership program for school construction and maintenance, with staff agreeing to provide more information and potentially bring department officials back for a future meeting. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly requested more granular data and clarifications, including waiver counts and funding impacts, trend lines for superintendent-reported needs, district-by-district spending spreadsheets, and definitions for certain matrix and accounting terms such as salary enhancement, LEA indebtedness, and other employee health insurance. The chair noted that the committee would continue the adequacy process over the coming months and use the worksheet in the binder to develop recommendations for the next biennium. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; instead, the committee received the report, asked for follow-up data, and agreed to continue the discussion at future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then a little terminology about our fund sources.
• From other funding sources? That's correct.
• and 3% or less of spending from all fund sources.
• Is that source funding through... ...source, funding source, through academic division of academic facilities
• which fund sources and revenues are making up expenditures.

Summary: The House/Joint Education committee continued its adequacy study with a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, focusing first on matrix spending and then non-matrix spending. Staff explained the methodology for mapping APSCN expenditure data to matrix lines, reviewed district and school categories used in the analysis, and highlighted key findings: foundation funding covered a large share of matrix costs but total spending on matrix items exceeded foundation funding, with classroom teachers making up the largest share. Members asked for additional breakdowns on waivers, superintendent survey responses, trend data, and spending by district type, size, and rural/urban status. Staff also noted limitations in tracking two matrix lines—salary enhancement for other employees and all personnel health insurance—because of coding and definition issues. The committee then reviewed non-matrix expenditures, including instructional aides, facilities, school safety, mental health, dyslexia services, gifted and talented, and career and technical education. Staff reported that non-matrix spending remained above $2 billion over the last three years, with most of it coming from other funds rather than foundation funding. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, mental health needs, school safety, food service, athletic transportation, and whether some items should be added to the matrix. The Department of Education clarified that the building fund reflects district-held funds for construction and maintenance projects, while the facilities partnership program is a separate state process for approved projects. In the final discussion, staff summarized total spending as more than $15,800 per student in 2025, with about 69% going to matrix resources and 31% to non-matrix resources. The chair explained the adequacy process and the committee’s role in setting future funding recommendations, and members discussed the recommendations worksheet included in the binder. The chair then proposed postponing the remainder of Part Two of the presentation until a May meeting after the fiscal session, along with inviting the Department of Education back for more detailed questions; with no objections, the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:15:40.880> for<00:15:41.360> transit uh funding source for transit uh funding source
• into two different sources.
• <00:26:17.760> So tapping into those other sources. So tapping into those other sources.
• <00:57:27.680> of the NTD and then we this the source of the NTD and then we this the source
• this is um that um that federal source this is um that um that federal source in<00:57:32.880>

Bills: HF4693

Keywords: transportation, license plates, validation stickers, replacement fees, government fees, 1183, house

Summary: The Transportation Finance and Policy Committee approved the April 13, 2026 minutes and then heard a presentation from Charles Carlson of Metropolitan Transportation Services on regional transit governance and finance in the Twin Cities area. Carlson reviewed the history of transit governance from private streetcars and buses to public control, including the creation of the Met Council and Metropolitan Transit Commission in 1967, later fragmentation through suburban opt-outs and the Regional Transit Board, and the 1994 consolidation that made Metro Transit part of the Met Council. He also explained the role of the Transportation Advisory Board as a state-created advisory body to the council’s federally designated MPO function, and noted that any major structural change to the Met Council could trigger federal redesignation requirements. The presentation then focused on funding changes over time. Carlson said transit was long supported by fares, property taxes, and federal aid, but that property taxes for operations were prohibited in 2001, federal operating assistance ended, and the state shifted to general fund support and then motor vehicle sales tax revenue. He described the 2006 constitutional dedication of motor vehicle sales tax, the volatility of that revenue during the Great Recession, and the use of one-time state appropriations and later federal COVID relief to cover operating gaps. He said the 2023 legislature created the regional 3/4-cent transportation sales tax to stabilize transit operations, reduced the state’s rail operating obligation, and moved Metro Mobility/Metro Move into a state forecast-based program effective in 2025. Members asked several questions about the structure of suburban “opt-out” providers, including Maple Grove and Plymouth, and how they can contract with Metro Transit or private providers while still retaining control of their allocated funds. Carlson explained that replacement service municipalities receive statutory and formula allocations and choose how to use them. He also described Metro Move as a waiver-based service begun in 2024 that uses human services and Medicaid funds to reduce pressure on the state general fund. Later discussion covered ridership and service shares, with Metro Council providing the vast majority of regional transit service and suburban providers accounting for a small share. No votes or bill actions were taken beyond adoption of the minutes; the chair indicated a bill would be taken up later in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then a little terminology about our fund sources. Then a little terminology about our fund sources.
• And all funding sources includes all state, local, and federal funds.
• and 3% or less of spending from all funding sources.
• Is that source, funding source, through academic division of academic facilities and transportation?
• which fund sources and revenues are making up expenditures.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the sale is sourced to a municipality.
• to what we now call destination sourcing.
• Okay, turning to the next slide, what are the sources of consternation? Sources of consternation?
• and other state sources.
• This is just revenue sources.

Transcript Highlights:

• Geothermal is a nice, long-term, sustainable energy source.
• Geothermal is a nice, long-term, sustainable energy source.
• All the rest are intermittent sources.
• Could you describe those sources and the potential for those sources to develop here in the state without
• Could you describe those sources and the potential for those sources to develop here in the state without

Bills: SB78, SB235, SB22, SB310

Keywords: nuclear energy, renewable energy, sustainability, carbon emissions, energy regulation, microgrid, zero carbon resources, Public Regulation Commission, energy generation, electric utilities, motor vehicle manufacturers, licensing, dealers, franchise agreements, consumer protection, water supply, sewage improvements, environment, funding, Mora County

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:14:52.400> These sources of federal funds D6. These sources of federal funds D6.
• <01:32:16.000> of shall six be from various sources of shall six be from various sources of
• shall be from Medicare and other sources shall be from Medicare and other sources of<01:42:43.199
• shall be from Medicare and other sources shall be from Medicare and other sources of<01:47:28.560
• various sources of reappropriated funds. various sources of reappropriated funds.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• With that, I also have a source.
• The transitions to new energy sources.
• This reliable energy source conditions.
• So protecting it as a fuel source 2022.
• energy source fails.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• gas, oil, and other proven sources. gas, oil, and other proven sources.
• I was never afraid of that that source I was never afraid of that that source of<05:36:13.200>
• fuel for nuclear reactors is sourced fuel for nuclear reactors is sourced primarily<05:39:30.320
• Instead, the Nuclear sourcing.
• all sources of energy truly have. all sources of energy truly have.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > the I know about soul source is from the I know about soul source is from the federal<00:28:
• I just want to it's approximate for sole source. Uh, a question back to sole source for a minute.
• And if I may, a follow-up source.
• will forever be called a sole source. will forever be called a sole source.
• scope, that then becomes a sole source scope, that then becomes a sole source as<00:35:26.720>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met after recess to hear a Department of Health and Human Services overview of its contract structure, with CFO Nathan White explaining that DHS currently has 969 active agreements spanning service contracts, grants, data-sharing agreements, use-of-premises agreements, and MOUs. He said contracts are budgeted across multiple class lines and accounting units, often braided with federal funds, which makes the system complex; he also noted that the department’s top spending list was limited to 18 items rather than 20 and included both individual contracts and grouped regional/provider contracts. White emphasized that many contracts support direct services to residents, while others support departmental operations such as software support and staffing. Commissioner Hardy said the listed contracts are essential to serving vulnerable populations and supporting required administrative infrastructure, and she stressed that the department tries to work with providers and families rather than impose changes on them. In response to questions about area agencies and developmental disability services, DHS officials said the agencies’ duties are spelled out in contract and statute, including family support services, billing-related functions, and services tied to the state’s community-based system; they said some billing duties have already been moved outside the contract. They also explained that the department rejected a previously discussed two-tier waiver concept after stakeholder feedback in October 2023 and instead shifted to rate-based work, including CIS assessments, to better align payment with individual need. Members also raised concerns about possible waste, sole-source contracting, and subcontracting. Hardy said she had not seen specific evidence of waste beyond a whistleblower call mentioned by a member, but acknowledged that inefficient execution can occur in government and said the department is trying to improve management. On procurement, she said sole-source contracts require her approval and that competitive procurement is the default when possible. White added that subcontracting is allowed only with written state permission under the standard P-37 terms, and subcontractors must meet the same obligations as the prime contractor. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, I I funding sources are.
• So, at this point at Legal Aid of the Bluegrass, we have roughly 60 funding sources: federal sources,
• receive other federal funding sources receive other federal funding sources for<00:29:06.799>
• sources sources um<00:30:10.720> weren't<00:30:11.039> set<00:30:11.200> up<00:
• were trying to use the funding sources were trying to use the funding sources that<00:30:25.360>

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations from the Legal Aid Network of Kentucky, including Legal Aid of the Bluegrass, Kentucky Legal Aid, AppalRed Legal Aid, and the Legal Aid Society in Louisville. The presenters explained that the four nonprofit programs provide civil legal services in all 120 counties, focusing on low-income clients and matters such as domestic violence, family law, housing, expungement, public benefits, and veterans’ issues. They emphasized that they do not handle criminal defense cases and described statewide efforts such as the kyjustice.org website and Project Renew, which helps people in recovery with legal issues that affect stability, employment, housing, and family reunification. Each organization highlighted regional service challenges and examples of casework. Legal Aid of the Bluegrass described its 33-county service area, its mobile “justice bus,” and expungement work for people in recovery. Kentucky Legal Aid focused on disaster response after the December 2021 tornadoes, including insurance disputes and contractor fraud, and said it has continued to handle repeated FEMA-declared disasters. AppalRed described serving 37 rural counties with limited attorneys, the shortage of lawyers in “rural legal deserts,” and its disaster-response work after flooding and tornadoes, including FEMA appeals clinics and volunteer attorney support. The Legal Aid Society described its Louisville-area veteran services, including Social Security and VA disability cases, veterans treatment court referrals, and homeless outreach. Committee members praised the organizations’ work and noted the importance of their services. In response to questions about funding, the presenters said their support comes from a mix of Legal Services Corporation funds, state appropriations, federal grants such as VOCA, VAWA, and HUD, United Way, and foundation funding. They stressed that many grants are restricted, while state funding is more flexible and useful for emergencies and day-to-day operations. The presenters said current funding does not fully meet demand and requested an increase in the General Assembly’s appropriation from $500,000 per year to $1 million per year, or $2 million over the biennium.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:29:08.360> for that um the other uh Revenue source for that um the other uh Revenue source
• Going over the sources and the uses of the funds.
• Going over the sources and the uses of the funds.
• Going over the sources and the uses of the funds.
• <00:37:00.560> are beyond that that all the sources are beyond that that all the sources are

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• from October 1 to April 15 every year, and added the requirement for a six-year outline and funding sources
• ><00:02:44.200> and<00:02:44.720> and<00:02:44.959> funding<00:02:45.280> sources
• I would ask for financial source of fund types, if you're already going to be asking for kind of a how
• much question, and you might just add to that where from, you know, the funding source.
• <00:16:00.079> something<00:16:00.399> in and their funding source something in and

Keywords: Meeting start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:12 Discussion on 2025 Regular Session Proposals 00:01:00 Discussion for Future Meetings 00:18:25, 958, all

Summary: The Investments in IT Improvements and Modernization Projects Oversight Board met for its first meeting, approved the minutes from November 13, 2024, and then discussed BR 355, a bill draft intended to revise and clarify the board’s governing statute based on its first year of experience. The draft would rename the body as the Information Technology Oversight Committee, add or refine definitions for cybersecurity projects/systems and legacy projects/systems, move the annual submission deadline earlier, and require a six-year outline and funding-source information for transition planning. Members and staff said the bill was largely a codification of current practice, with no major controversy. State Budget Director John Hicks and CIO Jim Baird offered technical comments and suggested several drafting changes: using “system” instead of “project” for legacy and cybersecurity references, adjusting the first reporting deadline to give agencies more time if the bill becomes law in March, and clarifying that the statute should ask agencies for estimated expenditures and funding sources rather than implying an electronic link to the budget request. They also suggested that the linkage to the budget process could be handled through budget instructions rather than statute. Members discussed whether the six-year outline should be biennial and agreed that the April timing fit the capital planning process. After the discussion, the board agreed in principle to revise the draft along those lines, including changing the terminology, making the six-year outline biennial, and refining the budget-related language. The board also discussed future meeting dates and agreed to meet on Fridays upon adjournment, with February and March meetings to be scheduled later. The meeting ended with a motion and second to adjourn, which passed.

Transcript Highlights:

• this case a baseload source of power.
• Well, I would suggest that really there's no perfect source of any source of electric generation.
• of power, in this case a baseload source of power.
• He responds that there is no perfect source of electric generation, that all sources have positives and
• Representative Anderson says there is no perfect source of electric generation.

Keywords: 1183, house