Transcript Highlights:

• And as well as a two-party plan, they did something similar, or the Legislature's plan included... ..
• Let me move over to the Planned Parenthood allocation for $90 million.
• So there’s a $90 million allocation. Planned Parenthood allocation for $90 million.
• going to Planned Parenthood.
• Chair and members, Kathy Mossberg, on behalf of the local health plans, the 17 nonprofit health plans

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Also want to point out that, short of a plan merger, assets from one plan can't be used to pay for benefits
• of another plan.
• And as of the 2024 measurement date, all open plans, which are the plans that still allow new entrants
• They vary by plan.
• You qualify. There's three different ways you can qualify. One is paying in 10 years over a career.

Summary: The Pension Funding Council met on October 8 with introductions from council members and staff, then received a detailed presentation from the Office of the State Actuary on long-term economic assumptions and the state pension systems’ financial condition. OSA reported that the combined pension systems are currently 100% funded on a smoothed basis, with open plans above 95% funded, and that legacy Plan 1 systems remain on a path toward full funding under current policy. The actuaries recommended updating assumptions to 3% inflation, 3.5% general salary growth, and a 7.25% investment return, while keeping Plan 1 membership growth at 1%. They also explained asset smoothing, the role of recent strong investment returns, and the expected budget impacts of the recommended changes. Representatives from the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council and the State Investment Board offered supporting perspectives, generally describing the assumptions as reasonable and consistent with their own outlooks. The council also heard an overview of the Long-Term Services and Supports Trust Program (WACares) from DSHS and OSA. Program staff described the program’s social insurance structure, premium collection, benefit eligibility, and upcoming implementation milestones. OSA reported that the program’s first actuarial valuation showed a positive actuarial balance under the base scenario and recommended no change to the current 0.58% premium rate during the program’s early learning phase, noting that future changes would depend on experience and the program’s risk-management framework. OSA also said the recommendation would remain the same regardless of the outcome of the pending ballot measure affecting investment options. During public comment, a representative of the Washington State School Retirees Association urged continued work on Plan 1 funding and related legislation, while the Association of Washington Cities cautioned against increasing pension assumptions in a way that could raise future employer costs and reduce flexibility for current local government services. In action, the council adopted a motion to maintain the current long-term economic assumptions by a 4-2 vote, adopted the recommendation to keep the WACares premium rate at 0.58% by a 6-0 vote, and then elected Katie Chapman as council chair by unanimous vote. The meeting then adjourned.

Bills: HB4358, HB2398, HB3557, HB3129, HB3312, HB2210, HB1937, HB3021, HB4246, HB4230, HB3617, HB3657, HB2976, HB3391, HB4459, HB4128, HB3989, HB2989, HB4060, HB3145, HB2992, HB3464, HB3552, HB2984, HB4124, HB3934, HB3448, HB3131, HB4200, HB4201, HB3011, HB1912, HB3380, HB3881, HB3538, HB3851, HB3907, HB4430, HB4431, HB4457, HB2947, HB2951, HB2980, HB3082, HB3519, HB3644, HB3882, HB3661, HB3996, HB4335

Keywords: screen time, education, public schools, child development, digital learning, youth health, academic performance, credential of value, workforce development, labor market, government reporting, Oklahoma Agricultural Extension, local funding, financial institutions, county extension services, state funds, free expression, colleges, security fees, public forums

Transcript Highlights:

• student at Oklahoma State University majoring in psychology and minoring in cognitive science and plans

Bills: SB1323, SB1863, SB1932, SB1950, SB1956, SB1970, SB1599, SB1312, SB1776, SB1858, SB1985, SB1302, SB1809, SB1401, SB2053, SB1503, SB1553, SB1427, SB1642, SB1421, SB1837, SB1566, SB1567, SB1794, SB1484, SB1557, SB1564, SB1591, SB1395, SB1456, SB1562, SB1613, SB1983, SB1550, SB2065, SB2152, SB2159, SB2172, SB2110, SB2111, SB2114

Keywords: memorial designation, highway, Sheriff Marty Grisham, transportation, Oklahoma Statutes, memorial highway, road designation, John Skelley, motor carrier, administrative hearing, legal representation, corporate liability, aviation, aircraft, surveillance, regulations, fees, Oklahoma statutes, memorial, highway designation

Transcript Highlights:

• New Mexico, our state insurance marketplace, offers only HMO plans.
• The nearest person was in Lubbock, and it was actually out of my plan.
• There's $28 million allocated for CCBHC.
• And these plans are two-day training sessions.
• So I think we could easily make more regional plans more quickly.

Transcript Highlights:

• This will allow you to then make necessary plans.
• We don't require that they have to, but they may also qualify as a sponsoring entity.
• Where is in the budget the transportation allocation for charter schools? Rep.
• The correction to make sure it doesn't over-restrict the employees that will qualify. Thank you.
• We should plan to be in Tallahassee the week of May 12 for conference committee meetings.

Bills: HJR 138, HB 42, HB 104, HB 129, HB 677, HB 426, HB 668, HB 1699, HB 2017, HB 2128, HB 2038, HB 3783, HB 3717, HB 2316, HB 3686, HB 2563, HB 3883, HB 4021, HB 2788, HB 2663, HB 3305, HB 3173, HB 3474, HB 1105, HB 3531, HB 3490, HB 3597, HB 1295, HB 3512, HB 3010, HB 3112, HB 4215, HB 3223, HB 3464, HB 3120, HB 4214, HB 4511, HB 3704, HB 4081, HB 4783, HB 4063, HB 2783, HB 4937, HB 5085, HB 2510, HB 3426, HB 4361, HB 1169, HB 2516, HB 2347, HB 4034, HB 4700, HB 3560, HB 5150, HB 3860, HB 3146, HB 3924, HCR 98, HCR 92, HB 1520, HB 1545, HB 5265, HB 1887, HB 1914, HB 2402, HB 2306, HB 2350, HB 3000, HB 3237, HB 3326, HB 3211, HB 1056, HB 2081, HB 2187, HB 3092, HB 3308, HB 3526, HB 3750, HB 4219, HB 4230, HB 4290, HB 5238, HB 4804, HB 4749, HB 245, HB 1465, HB 294, HB 793, HB 809, HB 3928, HB 334, HB 2037, HB 1973, HB 285, HB 4341, HB 1043, HB 1234, HB 1193, HB 1729, HB 2498, HB 1314, HB 1353, HB 3960, HB 3923, HB 2221, HB 2517, HB 2518, HB 2213, HB 5092, HB 3748, HB 5246, HB 4344, HB 1482, HB 4044, HB 2702, HB 4264, HB 2807, HB 2898, HB 3181, HB 3250, HB 2091, HB 2115, HB 2542, HB 2768, HB 3349, HB 4406, HB 1593, HB 1899, HB 3133, HB 3133, HB 4960, HB 3214, HB 2145, HB 1201, HB 5061, SB 29, SB 879, SB 65, SB 1745, SB 412, SB 412, SB 1746, SB 1238, SB 1341, SB 522, SB 1532, SB 1378, SB 1062, SB 2066, SB 1963, SB 2204, SB 1366, SB 2077, SB 1967, SB 1151, HB 1618, HB 2156, HB 2615, HB 2615, HB 2349, HB 1926, HB 569, HB 1762, HB 38, HJR 138, HB 42, HB 104, HB 104, HB 129, HB 677, HB 426, HB 668, HB 1699, HB 2017, HB 2128, HB 2038, HB 3783, HB 3717, HB 2316, HB 3686, HB 2563, HB 3883, HB 4021, HB 2788, HB 2663, HB 2663, HB 3305, HB 3173, HB 3474, HB 1105, HB 3531, HB 3531, HB 3490, HB 3490, HB 3597, HB 1295, HB 3512, HB 3010, HB 3112, HB 4215, HB 3223, HB 3223, HB 3464, HB 3120, HB 4214, HB 4511, HB 3704, HB 4081, HB 4783, HB 4063, HB 2783, HB 4937, HB 5085, HB 2510, HB 3426, HB 4361, HB 1169, HB 2516, HB 2347, HB 4034, HB 4700, HB 3560, HB 5150, HB 3860, HB 3146, HB 3924, HCR 98, HCR 92

Keywords: carbon tax, carbon emissions, greenhouse gas, climate policy, fuel tax, emissions tax, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, tax limitation, environmental tax, fossil fuels, energy policy, legislative taxing authority, ballot proposition, constitutional amendment, higher education, funding, financial allocation, state budget, Texas A&M University

Transcript Highlights:

• Arguably, on its own, it might qualify.
• Members, this bill helps Texas Mutual Insurance find qualified individuals for the board.
• Has any of the state pension funds made an allocation to any of these entities ever?
• So the question is, what's the proper allocation?
• There's not a prescribed asset allocation. So yes, the language is in there.

Bills: HJR138, HB42, HB 104, HB 129, HB677, HB426, HB668, HB1699, HB2017, HB2128, HB2038, HB3783, HB3717, HB2316, HB3686, HB2563, HB3883, HB4021, HB2788, HB2663, HB3305, HB3173, HB3474, HB 1105, HB3531, HB3490, HB3597, HB 1295, HB3512, HB3010, HB3112, HB4215, HB3223, HB3464, HB3120, HB4214, HB4511, HB3704, HB4081, HB4783, HB4063, HB2783, HB4937, HB5085, HB2510, HB3426, HB4361, HB 1169, HB2516, HB2347, HB4034, HB4700, HB3560, HB5150, HB3860, HB3146, HB3924, HCR98, HCR92, HB1520, HB1545, HB5265, HB1887, HB1914, HB2402, HB2306, HB2350, HB3000, HB3237, HB3326, HB3211, HB 1056, HB2081, HB2187, HB3092, HB3308, HB3526, HB3750, HB4219, HB4230, HB4290, HB5238, HB4804, HB4749, HB245, HB1465, HB294, HB793, HB809, HB3928, HB334, HB2037, HB1973, HB285, HB4341, HB 1043, HB 1234, HB 1193, HB1729, HB2498, HB1314, HB1353, HB3960, HB3923, HB2221, HB2517, HB2518, HB2213, HB5092, HB3748, HB5246, HB4344, HB1482, HB4044, HB2702, HB4264, HB2807, HB2898, HB3181, HB3250, HB2091, HB2115, HB2542, HB2768, HB3349, HB4406, HB1593, HB1899, HB3133, HB3133, HB4960, HB3214, HB2145, HB 1201, HB5061, SB29, SB879, SB65, SB1745, SB412, SB412, SB1746, SB1238, SB1341, SB522, SB1532, SB1378, SB1062, SB2066, SB1963, SB2204, SB1366, SB2077, SB1967, SB1151, HB1618, HB2156, HB2615, HB2615, HB2349, HB1926, HB569, HB1762, HB38, HJR138, HB42, HB 104, HB 104, HB 129, HB677, HB426, HB668, HB1699, HB2017, HB2128, HB2038, HB3783, HB3717, HB2316, HB3686, HB2563, HB3883, HB4021, HB2788, HB2663, HB2663, HB3305, HB3173, HB3474, HB 1105, HB3531, HB3531, HB3490, HB3490, HB3597, HB 1295, HB3512, HB3010, HB3112, HB4215, HB3223, HB3223, HB3464, HB3120, HB4214, HB4511, HB3704, HB4081, HB4783, HB4063, HB2783, HB4937, HB5085, HB2510, HB3426, HB4361, HB 1169, HB2516, HB2347, HB4034, HB4700, HB3560, HB5150, HB3860, HB3146, HB3924, HCR98, HCR92

Keywords: carbon tax, carbon emissions, greenhouse gas, climate policy, fuel tax, emissions tax, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, tax limitation, environmental tax, fossil fuels, energy policy, legislative taxing authority, ballot proposition, constitutional amendment, higher education, funding, financial allocation, state budget, Texas A&M University

Transcript Highlights:

• We're also allocating $61.2 million to Florida PALM readiness, which will be allocated to our state agencies
• We're also allocating $28 million... For child support enforcement.
• There's like $100 million in the base student allocation for raises.
• Right now, there's, I think, 3.5 allocated.
• So all the kiddos get a base student allocation. I like that.

Summary: The House met on the final day of session, swore in Representatives Boyles and Hodgers, and observed a moment of silence for the Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, as well as for Representative Rosenwald’s father. The chamber then moved into final budget work, with leaders outlining the plan to take up H.J.R. 5019, HB 7031, HB 5017, HB 5015, and then the general appropriations act once the Senate transmitted it. H.J.R. 5019, a proposed constitutional amendment to expand the budget stabilization fund, was explained and amended to raise the rainy day fund cap, require annual deposits, and allow withdrawals for critical state needs by a two-thirds vote; it passed 100-1. The House then adopted the conference report on HB 7031, the tax package. The bill repeals the business rent tax and aviation fuel tax, delays the natural gas fuel tax, creates or expands several sales tax holidays and exemptions, including permanent exemptions for disaster-preparedness items, hunting/fishing/camping items, and ammunition and firearms-related purchases, and makes changes to property, corporate income, local tax, and economic development provisions. Members debated the removal of recurring housing trust fund and transit-related revenue streams, the new ammunition exemption, and the data center tax changes; supporters argued the package reduces taxes and preserves annual budget flexibility, while opponents raised concerns about housing, transportation, and gun violence. The conference report passed 93-7. HB 5017, creating a debt reduction program funded by a recurring transfer to retire state bonds early, passed unanimously. HB 5015, the state group insurance conforming bill, which directs DMS to develop a formulary management plan and codifies the administrative health insurance assessment, also passed. The House then began explanation and questions on the fiscal year 2025-26 general appropriations act, described as a $115.1 billion budget that is down $3.8 billion from the current year and includes more than $12 billion in reserves. Subcommittee chairs summarized major spending areas, including pre-K-12 funding increases, health care funding for Medicaid, KidCare, nursing homes, opioid treatment, and mental health, transportation and economic development funding, environmental and water projects, higher education, state administration, justice, and information technology. Questions focused on school vouchers, inflationary pressures on school districts, and the adequacy of funding for housing, transportation, and other priorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a $53 million allocation that affects over allocation that affects over allocation that affects
• It's an employer plan. employer plan. It's an employer plan. employer plan. It's an employer plan.
• . insurance plan. insurance plan.
• They're going to manage this this this plan. this plan. this plan.
• they don't qualify the next year because well, qualify the next year because well, qualify the next

Bills: HB 135, HCR 64, SCR 3, SCR 30, SB 500, SB 739, SB 816, SB 898, SB 1283, SB 1351, SB 1423, SB 1531, SB 1540, SB 1666, SB 1721, SB 1886, SB 1931, SB 2001, SB 2075, SB 2154, SB 2173, SB 2217, SB 2284, SB 2375, SB 2383, SB 2386, SB 2398, SB 2448, SB 2476, SB 2540, SB 2580, SB 2589, SB 2693, SB 2707, SB 2776, SB 2786, SB 2801, SB 2864, SB 2927, SJR 84, SCR 30, SB 243, SB 324, SB 393, SB 457, SB 511, SB 529, SB 547, SB 636, SB 646, SB 659, SB 715, SB 731, SB 735, SB 800, SB 801, SB 904, SB 1065, SB 1141, SB 1181, SB 1224, SB 1241, SB 1242, SB 1250, SB 1266, SB 1285, SB 1359, SB 1434, SB 1442, SB 1467, SB 1502, SB 1524, SB 1528, SB 1551, SB 1585, SB 1640, SB 1754, SB 1757, SB 1777, SB 1844, SB 1863, SB 1972, SB 2007, SB 2035, SB 2046, SB 2055, SB 2069, SB 2082, SB 2119, SB 2139, SB 2154, SB 2200, SB 2201, SB 2269, SB 2310, SB 2330, SB 2357, SB 2366, SB 2401, SB 2422, SB 2514, SB 2530, SB 2533, SB 2543, SB 2544, SB 2550, SB 2568, SB 2589, SB 2660, SB 2693, SB 2695, SB 2707, SB 2717, SB 2721, SB 2742, SB 2753, SB 2807, SB 2846, SB 2891, SB 2925, SB 2938, SJR 3, SJR 18, SB 5, SB 326, SB 767, SB 769, SB 783, SB 914, SB 963, SB 1035, SB 1197, SB 1271, SB 1415, SB 1437, SB 1619, SB 1637, SB 1786, SB 1806, SB 494, SB 530, SB 2312, SB 1, SB 260, HB 135, HB 1109, HB 1392, HB 22, HCR 64, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 63, SJR 84, SJR 59, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 48, SCR 19, SCR 30, SCR 3, SB 2023, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 1502, SB 507, SB 1434, SB 1376, SB 1585, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1163, SB 1122, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1436, SB 287, SB 261, SB 1882, SB 393, SB 1791, SB 209, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 510, SB 1085, SB 1975, SB 2717, SB 1262, SB 1524, SB 636, SB 2056, SB 884, SB 517, SB 1200, SB 1845, SB 1863, SB 2681, SB 2200, SB 2199, SB 1757, SB 2458, SB 2201, SB 801, SB 2533, SB 3014, SB 3013, SB 758, SB 1721, SB 1013, SB 2797, SB 2383, SB 2119, SB 2448, SB 1777, SB 1283, SB 2076, SB 2786, SB 2876, SB 2284, SB 1540, SB 2929, SB 2540, SB 2595, SB 2217, SB 715, SB 500, SB 1640, SB 2001, SB 2514, SB 2753, SB 2398, SB 1241, SB 2927, SB 2173, SB 2538, SB 898, SB 1449, SB 2529, SB 2846, SB 2476, SB 986, SB 1181, SB 2075, SB 2154, SB 2864, SB 1359, SB 2386, SB 2550, SB 1351, SB 1423, SB 1931, SB 2245, SB 2589, SB 2707, SB 410, SB 2776, SB 2580, SB 1886, SB 1234, SB 739, SB 456, SB 1666, SB 2801, SB 2055, SB 1012, SB 2926, SB 2138, SB 1242, SB 2615, SB 2310, SB 1224, SB 2972, SB 2841, SB 3016, SB 2139, SB 1856, SB 2035, SB 1528, SB 1141, SB 2401, SB 2530, SB 2375, SB 547, SB 1266, SB 1373, SB 1467, SB 2069, SB 2269, SB 2480, 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, 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 1551, SB 3039, SB 2819, SB 66, SB 629, SB 1015, SB 2342, SB 2903, SB 2933, SB 1965, SB 2477, SB 3029, SB 2605, SB 2419, SB 1957, SB 375, SB 250, SB 777, SB 628, SB 2523, SB 2367, SB 2703, SB 2608, SB 2778, SB 3044, SB 2965, SB 2521, SB 865, HB 2525, HB 3093, SB 1032, SB 2165, SB 2501, SB 2675, SB 2452, SB 2835, SJR 84, SB 457, SB 547, SB 904, SB 1467, SB 1757, SB 1777, SB 2055, SB 2069, SB 2139, SB 2401, SB 2530, SB 2543, SB 2695, SR 349, SR 367, SR 468, SB 3064, SB 3065, HJR 7, HB 119, HB 130, HB 163, HB 166, HB 201, HB 272, HB 331, HB 380, HB 654, HB 694, HB 718, HB 865, HB 1266, HB 1397, HB 1500, HB 1552, HB 1576, HB 1583, HB 1584, HB 1760, HB 1894, HB 1965, HB 2018, HB 2029, HB 2286, HB 2340, HB 2427, HB 2455, HB 2467, HB 2508, HB 2523, HB 2730, HB 2756, HB 2791, HB 2970, HB 3016, HB 3096, HB 3248, HB 3255, HB 3336, HB 3623, HB 3698, HB 3699, HB 3803, HB 3804, HB 3805, HB 3806, HB 4129, HB 4187, HB 4236, HB 4238, HB 4643, HB 4738, HB 4739, HB 5333, SCR 3, SCR 30, SB 500, SB 739, SB 898, SB 1283, SB 1351, SB 1423, SB 1540, SB 1666, SB 1721, SB 1886, SB 1931, SB 2001, SB 2075, SB 2154, SB 2173, SB 2217, SB 2375, SB 2383, SB 2386, SB 2398, SB 2448, SB 2476, SB 2540, SB 2580, SB 2589, SB 2707, SB 2776, SB 2786, SB 2801, SB 2864, SB 2927, HB 135, HCR 64, SB 2284, SB 3064, SB 3065, HJR 7, HB 119, HB 130, HB 163, HB 166, HB 201, HB 272, HB 331, HB 380, HB 654, HB 694, HB 718, HB 865, HB 1266, HB 1397, HB 1500, HB 1552, HB 1576, HB 1583, HB 1584, HB 1760, HB 1894, HB 1965, HB 2018, HB 2029, HB 2286, HB 2340, HB 2427, HB 2455, HB 2467, HB 2508, HB 2523, HB 2730, HB 2756, HB 2791, HB 2970, HB 3016, HB 3096, HB 3248, HB 3255, HB 3336, HB 3623, HB 3698, HB 3699, HB 3803, HB 3804, HB 3805, HB 3806, HB 4129, HB 4187, HB 4236, HB 4238, HB 4643, HB 4738, HB 4739, HB 5333

Keywords: sales tax exemption, exotic animals, game animals, agriculture, livestock, gifted education, education support, student achievement, academic excellence, Texas education, cowboy culture, Bandera, cultural heritage, historical significance, Texas identity, Birding Capital, Matagorda County, wildlife, conservation, Texas Legislature

Transcript Highlights:

• After finishing his undergraduate degree, Jonas plans to earn a master's in urban and regional planning
• That was the plan.
• For your planning purposes, you do not need to plan on being here next week.
• The Senate calls the plan the Cardiac Emergency Response Plan, CERP.
• and fixed price BL plans.

Bills: HB135, HCR64, SCR3, SCR30, SB500, SB739, SB816, SB898, SB1283, SB1351, SB1423, SB1531, SB1540, SB1666, SB1721, SB1886, SB1931, SB2001, SB2075, SB2154, SB2173, SB2217, SB2284, SB2375, SB2383, SB2386, SB2398, SB2448, SB2476, SB2540, SB2580, SB2589, SB2693, SB2707, SB2776, SB2786, SB2801, SB2864, SB2927, SJR84, SCR30, SB243, SB324, SB393, SB457, SB511, SB529, SB547, SB636, SB646, SB659, SB715, SB731, SB735, SB800, SB801, SB904, SB1065, SB1141, SB1181, SB1224, SB1241, SB1242, SB1250, SB1266, SB1285, SB1359, SB1434, SB1442, SB1467, SB1502, SB1524, SB1528, SB1551, SB1585, SB1640, SB1754, SB1757, SB1777, SB1844, SB1863, SB1972, SB2007, SB2035, SB2046, SB2055, SB2069, SB2082, SB2119, SB2139, SB2154, SB2200, SB2201, SB2269, SB2310, SB2330, SB2357, SB2366, SB2401, SB2422, SB2514, SB2530, SB2533, SB2543, SB2544, SB2550, SB2568, SB2589, SB2660, SB2693, SB2695, SB2707, SB2717, SB2721, SB2742, SB2753, SB2807, SB2846, SB2891, SB2925, SB2938, SJR3, SJR18, SB5, SB326, SB767, SB769, SB783, SB914, SB963, SB1035, SB1197, SB1271, SB1415, SB1437, SB1619, SB1637, SB1786, SB1806, SB494, SB530, SB2312, SB1, SB260, HB135, HB 1109, HB1392, HB22, HCR64, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR84, SJR59, SCR12, SCR39, SCR48, SCR19, SCR30, SCR3, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB1502, SB507, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB1524, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB517, SB1200, SB1845, SB1863, SB2681, SB2200, SB2199, SB1757, SB2458, SB2201, SB801, SB2533, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB1721, SB1013, SB2797, SB2383, SB2119, SB2448, SB1777, SB1283, SB2076, SB2786, SB2876, SB2284, SB1540, SB2929, SB2540, SB2595, SB2217, SB715, SB500, SB1640, SB2001, SB2514, SB2753, SB2398, SB1241, SB2927, SB2173, SB2538, SB898, SB1449, SB2529, SB2846, SB2476, SB986, SB1181, SB2075, SB2154, SB2864, SB1359, SB2386, SB2550, SB1351, SB1423, SB1931, SB2245, SB2589, SB2707, SB410, SB2776, SB2580, SB1886, SB1234, SB739, SB456, SB1666, SB2801, SB2055, SB1012, SB2926, SB2138, SB1242, SB2615, SB2310, SB1224, SB2972, SB2841, SB3016, SB2139, SB1856, SB2035, SB1528, SB1141, SB2401, SB2530, SB2375, SB547, SB1266, SB1373, SB1467, SB2069, SB2269, SB2480, SB672, SB904, SB2695, SB2891, SB2422, SB2543, SB1854, SB317, SB2539, SB2532, SB2925, SB1250, SB2082, SB2203, SB457, SB2357, SB2721, SB243, SB1285, SB2568, SB1959, SB1442, SB1454, SB2520, SB2541, SB1708, SB1237, SB1844, SB1586, SB1551, SB3039, SB2819, SB66, SB629, SB1015, SB2342, SB2903, SB2933, SB1965, SB2477, SB3029, SB2605, SB2419, SB1957, SB375, SB250, SB777, SB628, SB2523, SB2367, SB2703, SB2608, SB2778, SB3044, SB2965, SB2521, SB865, HB2525, HB3093, SB1032, SB2165, SB2501, SB2675, SB2452, SB2835, SJR84, SB457, SB547, SB904, SB1467, SB1757, SB1777, SB2055, SB2069, SB2139, SB2401, SB2530, SB2543, SB2695, SR349, SR367, SR468, SB3064, SB3065, HJR7, HB 119, HB 130, HB163, HB166, HB201, HB272, HB331, HB380, HB654, HB694, HB718, HB865, HB 1266, HB1397, HB1500, HB1552, HB1576, HB1583, HB1584, HB1760, HB1894, HB1965, HB2018, HB2029, HB2286, HB2340, HB2427, HB2455, HB2467, HB2508, HB2523, HB2730, HB2756, HB2791, HB2970, HB3016, HB3096, HB3248, HB3255, HB3336, HB3623, HB3698, HB3699, HB3803, HB3804, HB3805, HB3806, HB4129, HB4187, HB4236, HB4238, HB4643, HB4738, HB4739, HB5333, SCR3, SCR30, SB500, SB739, SB898, SB1283, SB1351, SB1423, SB1540, SB1666, SB1721, SB1886, SB1931, SB2001, SB2075, SB2154, SB2173, SB2217, SB2375, SB2383, SB2386, SB2398, SB2448, SB2476, SB2540, SB2580, SB2589, SB2707, SB2776, SB2786, SB2801, SB2864, SB2927, HB135, HCR64, SB2284, SB3064, SB3065, HJR7, HB 119, HB 130, HB163, HB166, HB201, HB272, HB331, HB380, HB654, HB694, HB718, HB865, HB 1266, HB1397, HB1500, HB1552, HB1576, HB1583, HB1584, HB1760, HB1894, HB1965, HB2018, HB2029, HB2286, HB2340, HB2427, HB2455, HB2467, HB2508, HB2523, HB2730, HB2756, HB2791, HB2970, HB3016, HB3096, HB3248, HB3255, HB3336, HB3623, HB3698, HB3699, HB3803, HB3804, HB3805, HB3806, HB4129, HB4187, HB4236, HB4238, HB4643, HB4738, HB4739, HB5333

Keywords: sales tax exemption, exotic animals, game animals, agriculture, livestock, gifted education, education support, student achievement, academic excellence, Texas education, cowboy culture, Bandera, cultural heritage, historical significance, Texas identity, Birding Capital, Matagorda County, wildlife, conservation, Texas Legislature

Transcript Highlights:

• The SCFF is composed of three main components: a base allocation, accounting for...
• Yeah, or not allocated. Maybe increased as a result?
• Yeah, or not allocated, but approved maybe as a result of this.
• This isn't sustainable and makes planning ahead for colleges difficult.
• And honestly, on student housing, we encourage additional funds to be allocated to colleges with planning

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing focused on California Community College budget proposals. Chair Alvarez opened by emphasizing the system’s role in access, transfer, workforce training, and serving more than 2 million students, while also noting persistent challenges in enrollment, persistence, transfer, and graduation. Public commenters and system representatives broadly supported COLA, enrollment growth funding, deferred maintenance, student support block grants, and additional flexibility for districts facing uncertainty. The first major panel covered the student-centered funding formula, COLA, and enrollment growth. The Department of Finance said the Governor proposes a 2.43% COLA ($230.4 million) and 0.5% enrollment growth funding ($30.4 million). The LAO said the COLA was reasonable and recommended funding at least the proposed growth amount, citing uneven enrollment recovery and regional differences. The Chancellor’s Office supported both proposals and asked for additional changes, including using the greater of current-year or three-year average for apportionments and lifting the 10% local enrollment cap, arguing these would better fund growing districts. Members questioned how the formula works, whether SCFF is improving outcomes, and how much additional funding would be needed under different growth scenarios. The committee then reviewed categorical program COLAs, Rising Scholars, career education proposals, IT proposals, and student housing. The Governor proposed a 2.43% COLA for selected categorical programs ($31.9 million). For Rising Scholars, the Governor proposed $30 million ongoing and removal of the cap on participating colleges; the LAO urged waiting for outcome data before doubling funding, while the Chancellor’s Office said the program is serving more students and supports equity for justice-impacted students. On career education, the Governor proposed $50 million for credit for prior learning and $50 million for a career passport; the LAO supported more reporting on credit for prior learning but recommended rejecting the career passport as too undefined, while the Chancellor’s Office supported both. On technology, the Governor proposed $162.5 million for a common cloud data platform and $168 million for a common ERP system; the LAO said both were premature or lacked sufficient planning and recommended rejection, while the Chancellor’s Office argued they would improve real-time data, security, and systemwide efficiency. The committee also heard an update on student housing: the administration said the 2024 shift to a lease-revenue bond model remains in progress for 13 approved projects, with 11 still active, and members asked about withdrawn projects and possible use of any returned funds. No votes were taken, and several items were held open for further discussion and May Revision updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• This budget bill allocates $213 million for county Medi-Cal workload.
• So the additional funds that were provided is that's part of the legislatures to plan, two-party plan
• And out of those hearings came the Senate plan, what we call the Senate plan, as senators discussed what
• And out of those hearings came the Senate plan, what we call the Senate plan, as senators discussed what
• The allocation details are to be worked out.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 109, the Budget Act of 2026, and related discussion of the legislative budget agreement. Committee staff and the Department of Finance described a two-year balanced plan with about $253 billion in General Fund spending, roughly $5.5 billion in higher assumed revenues than the May Revision, and about $36.5 billion in combined reserves. They said the package preserves or expands funding for schools and community colleges, child care, IHSS, Medi-Cal-related county administration, housing and homelessness programs, public hospitals, courthouse construction, and some criminal justice and prison-closure savings, while delaying or modifying several prior health care reductions and some Medi-Cal changes. Much of the member discussion focused on Medi-Cal, H.R. 1, and the impact on low-income and immigrant Californians. Several Democrats argued the budget protects vulnerable residents by delaying some cuts, funding county eligibility work, indigent care, public hospitals, and food banks, and rejecting the Governor’s IHSS cuts and asset-limit proposal. Republicans criticized the budget for assuming future revenues, relying on new taxes, and not doing enough to address the structural deficit or improve accountability. Members also raised concerns and support around homelessness funding, Prop. 36, judgeships and courthouse funding, transit and GGRF allocations, local journalism, Caltrans fleet spending, and a proposed “fair share” revenue measure that was not yet before the committee. Public testimony was largely supportive of the budget’s health and human services provisions, especially the rejection of IHSS cuts and the asset-limit proposal, and the inclusion of funding for child care, sickle cell centers, domestic violence services, trauma recovery centers, distressed hospitals, county eligibility work, and transit programs. Some witnesses representing hospitals and health plans cautioned about the effects of moving certain Medi-Cal populations to fee-for-service and about proposed tax changes affecting health care providers. The chair said revenue trailer bills were still being finalized and would likely come back later in the week; the committee then moved to public comment, with the chair limiting speakers to about one minute each.

Transcript Highlights:

• That should have been in the reorg plan.
• So this plan has to be very, very clear about the safeguards.
• We're saying you did that plan; we can tear off of that plan.
• action plans for round six.
• We very much appreciate the Senate's budget plan.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision proposals focused on housing, homelessness, and related administrative changes, and took no votes, holding items open for later action. Item 1 would realign staff positions and resources as part of the Governor’s housing and homelessness reorganization, including shifting two Cal ICH positions to HCD, moving one Cal ICH position for communications/external affairs, and authorizing a chief deputy director at the new Housing Development Finance Committee. Administration witnesses said the changes were technical and net zero-cost, while the LAO recommended approval but asked for clarification on funding for the chief deputy. Several senators questioned whether the staffing shifts would weaken Cal ICH’s homelessness work and whether adding communications capacity was appropriate without new housing funding. Item 2 proposed creating a $100 million Disaster Rebuilding Fund at CalHFA, with $56 million General Fund and $44 million in existing National Mortgage Settlement funds, to support disaster-impacted homeowners through tools such as loan loss guarantees and interest rate buy-downs. CalHFA said the fund would help homeowners bridge the gap between insurance proceeds and rebuilding costs and would work through approved lenders. The LAO raised concerns about the lack of alternatives in the proposal, the broad discretion left to CalHFA in program design, and the General Fund cost. Senators pressed for more detail on eligibility, equity safeguards, lender oversight, and how many homeowners would actually benefit, with some warning the proposal was too open-ended and could miss the most vulnerable households. Item 3 addressed trailer bill language for HAP Round 7, including a proposed $500 million General Fund allocation tied to new accountability measures, pro-housing designation requirements for 14 large cities and 11 counties, local match requirements, streamlined system performance metrics, and recapture/reallocation of unspent funds. HCD said the proposal would avoid a new application process by treating Round 7 as additional disbursements of Round 6 and would provide technical assistance to jurisdictions. The LAO and several senators questioned the timing, the burden of pro-housing designation and local match requirements, the vagueness of some standards, and whether the proposal would delay rather than speed up funding. Members also debated whether the trailer bill preserved or weakened existing homelessness accountability metrics and whether the approach was too complicated given local budget pressures and ongoing homelessness needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• And SRA, because some families qualify for multiple, some providers have all of the options.
• We actually do have a plan to go for March to talk about the number of slots.
• side, they'll need to qualify there.
• reduction, right, that we weren't planning on and that dollar amounts continuing.
• So that's why... ...with it as programs would qualify for a different pot of money.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The committee met in a workshop-style discussion with Arkansas Department of Education early childhood officials to review the state’s early learning programs, especially ABC and SRA/CCDF, and to consider long-term sustainability, access, and quality. Officials said ABC funding was flat at $11 million from 2009-2010 until a $3 million increase in 2018, while CCDF/SRA funding is about $137 million. They reported ABC serves about 23,000 children, SRA about 14,871, and the SRA wait list has grown to 2,971 children, with breakdowns by age provided during the meeting. They also said the current ABC per-child cost is about $5,105, compared with roughly $8,000 in K-12, and that a new market-rate/cost-of-care study is due because the last one was about three years ago. Members raised concerns about rural and urban access, provider deserts, school-based versus community-based slots, and whether the state should expand or rebalance funding to better support infant-toddler care and mixed delivery. Officials said they are working on identifying gaps, moving slots where possible, and using local leads and quality measures such as CLASS observations to improve kindergarten readiness. They also discussed the transition of federal pre-K funding ending at the end of June, with children either moving into ABC or requalifying for SRA, but without grandfathering beyond bypassing the wait list if already enrolled. A major topic was the impact of new co-pays and funding reductions on families and providers. Officials said the state had to make changes to preserve the programs, and that paying based on enrollment rather than allocated slots saved about $576,000. They also said eight providers cited funding as the reason for closing, while 26 new providers were added under the new rates. Members questioned dual enrollment in home visiting/HIPPY and ABC, and officials said about 1,200 children are dually enrolled, with a possible savings of about $2.4 million if that practice were limited, though members cautioned about unintended consequences for children with developmental needs. The meeting ended with agreement to continue regular updates and further work on simplifying and stabilizing the early childhood system.

Transcript Highlights:

• Planning and public finance.
• Answered that, thank you in all the models in all the plans.
• Direct allocation. And that direct allocation actually expires on June 30th.
• Plan and I don't know how we're gauging things quite honestly.
• Process of figuring out how they qualify is what is the need of weatherization.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then ABC has some qualifying components as well.
• And then ABC has some qualifying components as well.
• looking at a map and trying to allocate where seats are needed the most.
• Those have to be spent specifically on the items for which they're allocated.
• month when we talk about our funding and the resource allocation.

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the previous minutes and then focused on an update from the Department of Education on early childhood programs, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ongoing work to review ABC slots, which have been flat for years at about 23,800 slots and roughly $114 million. They said about 1,000 slots statewide are currently unfilled despite a waiting list of more than 2,000 families, and the department is shifting toward paying based on enrollment rather than guaranteed slots. Members asked about school choice, income eligibility, year-round access, curriculum flexibility, transportation, and whether funding should be increased or rebalanced; the department said it is collecting data, may survey providers more formally, and is considering whether to modernize income thresholds, daily rates, and other program rules. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical information on income limits and other program details. The second major portion of the meeting was a legal presentation on the framework for Arkansas school adequacy by BLR education attorney Taylor Lloyd. She reviewed the constitutional basis for a “general, suitable, and efficient” public school system, the Dupree and Lake View cases, and the principle that adequacy and equity are different but related: adequacy asks what resources are needed, while equity asks whether those resources are distributed fairly. She explained that the General Assembly must define adequacy, study it, and react to evidence over time, and that the current adequacy definition includes curriculum and career/technical frameworks, the 38 mandatory Carnegie units, state testing standards, and sufficient funding. She also described the matrix as a funding tool, not a spending mandate, and noted that categorical funds are separate from the matrix. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum then gave the historical framework, tracing legislative responses from Dupree through Lake View and into the present. She highlighted major changes such as the creation of equalization funding, fiscal distress and academic distress laws, the adequacy study process, the Educational Adequacy Fund, facilities and transportation changes, declining enrollment and student growth funding, and later adjustments to teacher salaries, isolated funding, and categorical programs. She explained that the adequacy study has evolved through committee hearings, surveys, site visits, and outside consultants, and that recent changes include updates to accountability references and the addition or removal of certain funding categories. Members asked follow-up questions about how the matrix is used, whether homeschool or private-school funding raises comparable issues, whether stakeholders include private and homeschool participants, whether school board members should be surveyed, and whether the state should revisit average daily membership versus attendance-based funding. No votes were taken on the adequacy presentations, but the committee did agree to continue the early childhood discussion in a future subcommittee meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll plan to report to you then also on actual Reversions from last year.
• They sit there, they go away, they have no plan.
• You have them plan and design.
• We did this in NMFA, where they could allocate planning money for a different project.
• So that they'll know what planning and design is necessary.

Transcript Highlights:

• Looking at the DJJ supplemental allocation, the education enrichment allocation, and the ESE guarantee
• allocation, all received reductions in funding, and also the mental health assistance allocation, along
• with the safe schools allocation.
• Can someone explain why these allocations were reduced or received no increase in allocation, more specifically
• ...and the ESE guarantee allocation.

Bills: S1062, S1718, S7038

Keywords: speech education, debate, high school, Florida Debate Initiative, civics, competitive teams, student participation, educational advancement, educator preparation, certification, professional development, temporary certificate, military service, collaboration, teaching effectiveness, education, Florida College System, tuition waivers, vocational rehabilitation, state universities

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education met to consider several education bills and the proposed fiscal year 2026-2027 Department of Education budget. The committee first took up CS/SB 1062 on speech and debate, which would formalize Florida’s Speech and Debate Week, strengthen the partnership between the Department of Education and the Florida Debate Initiative, require annual public reporting, and support statewide speech and debate programming. The bill drew extensive supportive testimony from students, alumni, and advocates who said debate improved civic engagement, literacy, confidence, and school performance, while also noting the need for equitable access and funding for travel and competition. The committee adopted a delete-everything amendment and then reported the bill favorably as amended by a unanimous vote of members present. The committee then heard SB 1718 on educator preparation and certification, which expands access to educator preparation coursework, broadens eligibility for temporary certification for some formerly certified professionals, and allows prior subject-area exam results to satisfy requirements. Public testimony largely supported easing barriers for experienced educators while emphasizing that certification changes are only a partial solution to teacher shortages and should be paired with better pay, retention, and professional respect. The bill was reported favorably. Next, the committee considered SB 7038 on education, which included a wide range of higher education and workforce-related changes, including a tuition waiver for Florida State Guard members, residency clarifications, oversight changes for blind services and vocational rehabilitation providers, licensure updates for private colleges, dual enrollment and assessment revisions, scholarship and funding changes, and reserve-fund requirements. An amendment restored the Classical Learning Test as a qualifying option for a grandparent tuition waiver, adjusted a Pell Grant performance metric, changed accreditation timing, and made other technical revisions. A dental education stakeholder raised concerns that one provision could disrupt long-standing exemptions for dental assisting programs, and the Florida Dental Association said it was working with the sponsor to avoid unintended impacts. The committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably as amended. The final major item was a high-level review of the proposed pre-K-12 budget, totaling $34.9 billion with local funds. Highlights included $30 billion for public schools and K-12 scholarships, a $50 increase in the base student allocation, a 1.64% increase in total funds per FTE, $4.5 billion for family empowerment scholarships as a separate FEFP categorical, $25 million for districts facing future enrollment declines, $65.3 million to help districts with current-year enrollment losses, $432.8 million for VPK, and $30.4 million for regional education consortia. Senators asked about reductions or flat funding in some allocations, teacher pay, declining enrollment support, Schools of Hope funding, and support for non-teaching school staff. Public testimony on the budget focused heavily on concerns about charter and voucher funding, especially the $6 million for Schools of Hope, with speakers urging more investment in traditional public schools, teacher compensation, and school infrastructure. The committee concluded the meeting by adjournment after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• efforts and their efforts to implement those plans.
• Agency officials generally indicated planning to use the fiscal year 2026 allocations to either pay for
• They were the most qualified within my agency.
• Now, you noted in your future plans that if fund monies are... ...noted in your future plans that if
• It was just that they had their own plans.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee opened with remarks about moving JLAC to a more frequent monthly schedule and spending more time on each audit. Members also recognized Melanie Chesney of the Auditor General’s office for 32 years of service, with several members praising her work and her role in school safety and other audits. The meeting then turned to the JLAC-directed Arizona School Safety Special Audit on interoperable communication systems, with the Auditor General’s office presenting the December 2025 report. The audit found that the state had allocated nearly $26 million to interoperable communication efforts, but implementation varied widely. Auditors said all 14 law enforcement agencies used the money for interoperable systems, yet four agencies allowed private or tribal schools to participate contrary to statute, and several agencies failed to submit required expenditure reports. The report also found procurement problems: nine of 14 agencies did not follow procurement requirements or lacked documentation, many contracts lacked accountability provisions, and some agencies had not planned for ongoing costs. The audit estimated ongoing annual costs for an average rural county could range from about $16,000 to $382,000, and recommended that agencies document costs, follow procurement rules, monitor vendors, and plan for future funding. It also recommended the legislature clarify whether non-public schools may participate and revisit statutory system requirements that were vague or inconsistently interpreted. Members questioned the Auditor General about vendor licensing, whether systems could be built in-house, why some functions were not configured, and whether the systems were truly usable in emergencies. The presentation explained that some systems met requirements only in part, that Mutualink had a per-user licensing model affecting access to secure text and file sharing, and that some schools were unwilling or unable to install apps or keep devices logged in. The committee also discussed the difference between the separate school safety grant program administered by ADE and this interoperability fund, and several members expressed frustration with sole-source contracting and weak documentation. In the final portion of the presentation, auditors said only two of eight observed systems demonstrated all five critical emergency functions, while four agency systems could not be tested because they were reportedly not functioning. The committee then began hearing responses from county sheriffs, starting with the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association president, who emphasized county commitment to school safety and noted that some counties had implemented systems across multiple districts, including tribal and rural schools. No votes or formal actions were taken during the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• application process so you can qualify application process so you can qualify for<00:15:12.720><
• or don't qualify?
• department of education our allocation department of education our allocation comes<00:45:59.079
• <01:01:59.359> their real time so that they can plan their real time so that they can plan
• How can schools plan for that?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee Division II met with the New Hampshire Department of Education to review school nutrition programs and related funding. Department staff Melissa White and Kelly Rambo walked through a packet covering the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program, explaining that these are federally funded USDA programs, with some state supplemental funding in certain areas. They also reviewed reimbursement rates for lunch, breakfast, child/adult care, and summer meals, noting that summer rates follow calendar-year timing while most others follow the state fiscal year. Members asked several questions about how the funding works, especially the difference between federal reimbursements and the state match. Staff explained that the state lunch line in the budget is a fixed match amount tied to federal participation, while breakfast funding is broken out by meal type and reimbursement category. They also discussed why FY 2022 federal spending was much higher during COVID, when USDA covered meals at the free rate for all students, and why FY 2023 and FY 2024 dropped as normal income-eligibility rules returned. A committee member also asked about the “severe need lunch” two-cent rate, and staff said they did not know USDA’s formula. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on summer meals and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved sites, which can be open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-operated benefit program that provides funds to families. They said some schools or sites may not qualify under USDA rules, but eligible children can often use another nearby open site, and the department posts an interactive map and phone line to help families find locations. The committee also discussed the Community Eligibility Provision. Staff said New Hampshire currently has three CEP schools, that the eligibility threshold had recently been lowered from 40% to 25% identified students, and that the program allows participating schools to offer free meals to all students while the local district covers the non-federal share. Members asked whether any districts in the 25% to 40% range had joined; staff said no. The department offered to provide the eligibility report in Excel and noted that the CEP intent is to reduce application burden, though the lower threshold can make the local cost share harder for some districts to absorb.