Transcript Highlights:

• It deals with the capping of the funds which go out to the school districts, and there's one district
• that's been capped: Manchester. 1835 is another one of those bills dealing with the special education
• The program is capped at $5.1 million.
• Household incomes have to be 300% of the federal poverty level or lower, and the program is capped at
• It's repealing the education tax trust fund targeted aid cap.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• >> That's still a cap. Yes. >> That's still a cap. Yes. Repres.
• a little confused that the 350 is a cap a little confused that the 350 is a cap on<02:18:56.160>
• total cap on the state. total cap on the state.
• Um, but looking at the numbers, the fact that we have reduced the cap, or made a cap of 500%, so far
• Some states have no caps, some states have a cap.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Having considered budget and tax caps.
• when who tax or budget cap reached?
• <04:22:37.520> to adopt a local tax or budget cap to adopt a local tax or budget cap to submit
• It also standardized definitions across local caps.
• It also standardized definitions across local caps.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• One being a town supervisor is that 2 percent tax cap, having that 2 percent tax cap, trying to stay
• under that tax cap, and making sure we spend that money wisely.
• Local governments are doing their part under this 2 percent tax cap.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on General Government and Local Assistance held its first meeting on the 2026/2027 state budget, with opening remarks from Senate Co-Chair Senator James Skoufis and Assembly Co-Chair Assembly Member Michaelle Solages. They introduced members, designated secretaries, and identified the agencies and budget areas under the subcommittee’s purview, including tax and finance, the Division of Budget, ethics and lobbying, financial services, general services, state charges, inspector general, state, audit and control, tax appeals, IT services, aid to localities, statewide financial systems, the Board of Elections, alcohol beverage control, and miscellaneous general government. Discussion focused on affordability, local government aid, and the strain on municipalities from rising costs, aging infrastructure, and state mandates. Senator Walczyk emphasized lowering taxes, reducing regulations, and increasing support for local governments, including AIM and CHIPS funding, while criticizing high housing, energy, and insurance costs. Assembly Minority members echoed concerns about the 2 percent property tax cap, utility bills, mandated costs, and the need for more permanent aid rather than temporary assistance. Assembly Member Ari Brown argued that the proposals did not provide enough long-term certainty, noting differences among the Governor’s, Assembly’s, and Senate’s funding levels for municipal aid and related programs. Assembly Member Burdick also supported stronger funding for municipalities, drawing on his local government experience. The co-chairs noted that no table target had yet been received and that negotiations would continue on open issues in general government. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after brief closing remarks about ongoing budget talks among the Senate, Assembly, and Governor.

Transcript Highlights:

• lost one potential business coming to New Hampshire, but because we were too close to the cap limit,
• lost one potential business coming to New Hampshire, but because we were too close to the cap limit,
• 16.800> the we we're already scraping up against the we we're already scraping up against the cap
• 19.359> we've<00:40:19.680> already<00:40:20.000> lost<00:40:20.400> one cap
• and uh we've already lost one cap and uh we've already lost one potential<00:40:21.280> business<

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 241, which would provide information about alternative pain treatments rather than mandate services. Members cited support from the prime sponsor, medical organizations, insurers, and other stakeholders, and noted there was no fiscal impact. The committee voted unanimously, 7-0, to ought to pass the bill. It then took up House Bill 629, which raises a boat decal fee and dedicates the revenue to the dam maintenance fund. Members described the state’s deteriorating dam infrastructure, noting the large number of dams, the high-hazard sites, and the much larger funding need, while saying the bill would provide only a modest start. They also said boat owners generally did not strongly object to the fee. The committee voted 7-0 to ought to pass. House Bill 1042, concerning an increase in the unified contingent credit limit for New Hampshire Business Finance Authority projects, drew more divided discussion. Supporters said the higher cap would provide needed flexibility and liquidity for business development and that the state treasurer and BFA had explained the credit structure and low historical loss rate; opponents warned the increase would raise state exposure too much, too soon. After debate, the chair postponed the bill, then later returned with an amendment lowering the proposed limit from 450 million to 400 million, which the committee adopted unanimously. The committee then moved to ought to pass as amended. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 1411, which would have allowed withholding payments to the federal government in response to federal actions. Members opposing the bill argued that withholding employee-related funds would be unlawful and ineffective, while supporters said it could serve as a statement and suggested interim study instead. The committee rejected the bill on a 4-3 vote and voted to inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this, would the director have a cap on it, or is it just the one cent?
• A couple years ago, we included a cap on a tax exemption... For the clarification.
• A couple years ago, we included a cap on a tax exemption for STOs, for school tuition organizations.
• It also reduces the cap on the provider assessment.
• those cap rate increases again, and we've had huge increases.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee met to review the governor’s fiscal 2027 budget presentation, with the chair repeatedly asking members to keep questions brief and avoid speeches. The discussion focused first on the overall revenue and spending outlook, including concerns from members that the executive forecast was more optimistic than the JLBC baseline and that the budget appeared to front-load revenue and expenditure growth. The governor’s budget team said the forecast was close to JLBC’s, that the budget was structurally balanced, and that differences were roughly $100 million per year on ongoing revenue. Members asked for follow-up calculations in writing, including the total multi-year gap and the amount of revenue enhancements above base revenues. A major portion of the meeting centered on tax and fee proposals tied to data centers, water use, and sports betting. The governor’s team defended eliminating the existing data center tax incentive as the removal of a loophole rather than a new tax, arguing the incentive had already succeeded in attracting major investment. They also described a proposed Department of Water Resources fee-setting authority for data centers to support a new Colorado River Protection Fund, and said the proposal would apply to existing and future facilities without a grandfather clause. Members raised concerns about fairness, competitiveness, and whether the changes would require a supermajority vote. The team also discussed increased sports betting fees, saying the revenue forecast did not include dynamic behavioral effects. The committee then moved through major spending areas, including corrections, public safety, border security, cybersecurity, K-12 education, Medicaid, and developmental disabilities. The governor’s budget includes ongoing funding to prevent correctional officer pay cuts, money to comply with prison health care court orders, probation funding, body-worn cameras, law enforcement staffing, fentanyl task forces, and cyber readiness grants. Members questioned the lack of funding for a prison oversight committee and asked for corrections spending totals over the administration. On border security, the executive said it was seeking about $759.7 million in federal reimbursement for border-related costs and that the governor had met with federal officials, including Secretary Noem and Tom Homan, about the request. In education, the budget proposes renewing Prop. 123, adding K-12 base funding, and issuing $1.5 billion in school facilities bonds over three years; members debated whether the proposal was appropriate and whether Prop. 123 revenues could support the debt service. The meeting also covered AHCCCS cost growth and federal HR1 impacts, with the executive warning of major coverage losses and hospital funding reductions, and DDD funding, where the governor’s team said the budget fully funds services and includes about $120 million in supplemental needs. No votes were taken; the meeting was a presentation and question-and-answer session only.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also increases the investment cap from $4 million to $15 million.
• way our economy works, that cap is a little bit outdated.
• The volume cap is the federal limit on...
• cap the volume<01:33:03.440> cap<01:33:03.760> is<01:33:03.920> the<01:33:04.159
• Section 5 clarifies an existing cross-reference to this volume cap.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It moves that cap from about $40,000 to about $52,000 annually.
• It doesn't move the salary cap for them necessarily.
• It doesn't move the salary cap for them necessarily.
• It doesn't move the salary cap route.
• It doesn't move the salary cap for<00:27:07.039> them<00:27:07.200> necessarily.

Keywords: 920, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, approved excusing absent members, dispensed with the previous day’s journal, and allowed bill introductions and committee reports throughout the day. Members also recognized guests in the gallery, including Judge Smitherman and later Karen Butler, wife of Senator Tom Butler. The chamber adopted Senate Joint Resolution 11, honoring Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Incorporated on its Founders Day and 118 years of service, after reading the resolution at length and hearing brief remarks from Senator Figures. The Senate then adopted the Rules Committee’s special order calendar and took up several bills. Senate Bill 12 by Senator Gudger, repealing a prior community development districts law tied to a Coleman County project, passed. Senate Bill 19 by Senator Livingston, dealing with health insurance/prostate cancer screening, also passed. Senate Bill 89 by Senator Sessions, repealing the 1931 State Pilotage Commission statute, passed; Senate Bill 134 by Senator Beasley, concerning taxation and interstate warehousing of tobacco products, passed after a committee amendment was adopted; Senate Bill 100 by Senator Kelly, extending the State Board of Pharmacy sunset for one year with appointment changes, passed; Senate Bill 114 by Senator Bell, expanding Alabama’s handling of out-of-state warrants to additional felonies, passed; Senate Bill 122 by Senator Stewart, regarding the State Board of Registration for Foresters, passed; Senate Bill 35 by Senator Kitchens, updating vessel registration language for Coast Guard compliance, passed; and Senate Bill 127 by Senators Coleman-Madison and Stewart, continuing the Board of Examiners in Counseling for four years, passed. Senate Bill 28 by Senator Elliott, which would raise the earnings cap for retired law enforcement officers and district attorneys returning to work and address school bus driver staffing, was discussed at length but carried over at the sponsor’s request. Senators raised concerns about the bill’s impact on RSA/retirement system funding and the possibility of broader pressure for similar retiree reemployment arrangements, while supporters emphasized staffing shortages, training savings, and benefits for schools and public safety. The session concluded with the calendar completed and a new resolution introduced by Senator Orr recognizing the 250th anniversary of the United States Postal Service, which was taken up for immediate consideration and adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• It caps the total state-directed payment amounts for inpatient hospital and nursing facility services
• It maintains the 5% of family income cap on out-of-pocket costs.
• Medicaid funding is subject to sequestration, but cuts are capped at 4%.
• I'm sorry, the loans don't— the caps don't go into effect until July 1, 2026.
• I'm sorry, the loans don't, the caps don't go to effect until July 1st of 2026.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held its fifth hearing of the year to examine the newly enacted federal H.R. 1 and its effects on California. Members and the chair described the law as a major threat to state health, food, education, and climate programs, and emphasized that California would not be able to fully backfill the federal cuts. Several members also highlighted the bill’s tax provisions, including temporary deductions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, while warning that the largest benefits flow to higher-income taxpayers and that major cuts to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and clean-energy incentives are delayed or phased in over time. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance presented detailed overviews of the bill’s likely impacts and implementation timelines. They identified the main affected areas as health care coverage and financing, food assistance, higher education, personal income taxes, and clean-energy/electric-vehicle credits. They explained that H.R. 1 limits provider taxes used to finance Medi-Cal, adds work and redetermination requirements, restricts CalFresh eligibility and increases state costs, changes student loan and Pell Grant rules, extends and modifies federal tax provisions, and phases out many clean-energy credits. Finance also noted major rescissions of Inflation Reduction Act funds, new border and immigration enforcement spending, and the possibility of PAYGO sequestration if Congress does not act to offset the deficit increase. During member questions, the committee focused on likely enrollment losses, administrative burdens, and fiscal exposure for the state and counties. Witnesses said many details still depend on federal guidance, but they estimated significant impacts on Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and graduate/professional student borrowing, and noted that California’s high CalFresh error rate could increase state costs. UC testified that the elimination of Graduate PLUS loans would affect thousands of professional students, especially in health, law, and other high-cost programs. Members asked for follow-up data on county, health, and tax impacts, and staff agreed to provide additional tables and estimates as implementation guidance becomes clearer. Public commenters from counties, early childhood advocates, health coalitions, disability rights groups, immigrant-rights organizations, and other stakeholders urged the Legislature to mitigate the law’s effects. They warned of higher county costs, reduced access to health care and food assistance, increased administrative burdens, and harm to children, immigrants, people with disabilities, and low-income families. Several urged new state revenue solutions and stronger protections for Medi-Cal, CalFresh, child care, and home- and community-based services. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with a commitment to continue monitoring federal guidance and to work on state responses in the budget process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Though the report concluded that at this time there was no viable cap-and-invest program available to
• The report poses recommendations for steps to support the careful design of a cap-and-invest program
• York cap-and-invest program.
• a New York cap and invest was joining a New York cap and invest<02:30:22.280> program.
• and invest was joining a New York cap-and-invest program.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House first suspended the rules briefly to make announcements, including welcoming former representative Doug Gage to the gallery. It then returned to House Bill 211 on data brokers and personal information, where the Appropriations Committee explained a $50,000 appropriation to the Secretary of State for a consultant-led study on an accessible deletion mechanism for consumers to delete personal data held by data brokers, with interim and final reports due in 2027 and 2028. The committee reported a 9-0-2 vote in favor, and the House agreed to the Commerce and Economic Development Committee’s amendment and ordered third reading. Floor debate on H. 211 focused heavily on the bill’s deletion and exemption framework. Supporters argued the bill is needed to give Vermonters meaningful control over their data and to prevent data brokers from commingling information for unrelated uses. Opponents warned the bill could conflict with existing federal frameworks such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, and could make credit, banking, insurance, fraud prevention, and identity verification harder. In response, the sponsor said the bill uses use-case-based exemptions rather than broad entity-level exemptions, noted testimony from banks, insurers, a data broker, a former data broker employee, and the Attorney General, and said no constitutional concerns were raised. The House ultimately adopted the amendment and advanced the bill. After H. 211, the House moved to House Bill 577, establishing the Vermont Prescription Drug Discount Card Program. Committee reports from Health Care, Ways and Means, and Appropriations were read into the record, and the Colchester member described the bill as a way to lower prescription drug costs by joining the multi-state Array Rx program. The bill would let any Vermont resident obtain a free discount card for FDA-approved prescription drugs, with claimed savings up to 80% on generics and 20% on brand-name drugs. The House then proceeded to second reading on H. 577.

Transcript Highlights:

• These payments are subject to an aggregate cap of $200 million.
• HB 4026 replaces the $200 million aggregate cap with an annual cap of $75 million and expands the definition
• instead of the annual cap and adds $100 million of capacity to the cap.
• With the $200 million cap rapidly being reached...
• Number one is the cap on the whole program.

Bills: HB2091, HB2140, HB2320, HB2384, HB2398, HB2502, HB2780, HB2918, HB2939, HB2950, HB2999, HB4020, HB4026, HB4029

Keywords: insurance, financial surveillance, regulations, assessments, Arizona Revised Statutes, investment, state treasurer, gold bullion, treasury management, financial regulations, school districts, bonds, financial advisors, elections, municipal advisors, cost of borrowing, lease agreements, school property, tax exemptions, impact aid revenue bonds

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee approved the minutes from March 16, 2026, then heard testimony on a series of bills, with the chair noting that testimony and votes would be handled in batches because members were coming and going. HB 2939 would raise the rural qualified facilities tax credit from $20,000 to $25,000 per job for certain projects with initial investment under $2 billion. Lucid Motors supported the change as a tool to attract manufacturing jobs to rural Arizona, while opponents questioned whether the higher credit would actually create new jobs and pointed to a fiscal note that could reach $48 million. The committee later passed the bill 5-2. HB 2950 would authorize municipalities and counties to form tourism improvement areas funded by lodging business assessments for marketing and tourism promotion. The Arizona Lodging and Tourism Association and Visit Phoenix supported the measure, describing TIAs as voluntary, locally controlled tools already used in other states and useful for rural destinations; senators pressed on whether the assessments were truly voluntary and how the districts would be formed and administered. The bill passed 5-2. HB 2780, a technical cleanup bill related to property tax lien foreclosure and excess proceeds sales, was described as conforming changes to a prior law creating a mechanism for delinquent taxpayers to recover equity; it passed 6-1. HB 2502 would allow certain ASRS members who are elected officials to retire at normal retirement age without resigning their elected office, with the employer paying the alternate contribution rate. ASRS said it was neutral, and the sponsor and a lobbyist argued the bill would create parity with non-elected members who can retire and return to work; the committee passed it 5-2. HB 2140, as amended by a striker, would let the state treasurer invest up to 10% of trust and treasury monies in physical gold or silver bullion held in secure U.S. depositories. The sponsor and Sound Money Defense League supported it as a diversification and inflation hedge, while opponents argued gold is volatile, costly to store, and not a better use of taxpayer funds; the committee adopted the striker and passed the bill 4-2. HB 2398 would require commercial liability insurance for watercraft rented or hired in Arizona, including peer-to-peer boat-sharing programs, while not affecting ordinary personal boat ownership. The sponsor, insurers, and rental operators said the bill responds to uninsured boats being rented through apps and to safety and liability problems; some members said training should also be addressed. The committee adopted an amendment and passed the bill 6-1. Finally, HB 2999 would create state affordable infrastructure districts to finance public infrastructure for housing through bonds, taxes, and assessments, with unanimous landowner consent and disclosure requirements. Home builders and contractors said the districts could lower upfront housing costs and improve financing, but contractors sought stronger payment protections and some senators worried the bill could add red tape and costs without guaranteeing savings to homebuyers. After adopting a large amendment, the committee passed HB 2999, though at least one member voted no and another passed on the vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• case that uh cities could have tax caps case that uh cities could have tax caps and<00:07:22.880
• <00:07:40.000> But<00:07:40.080> it caps and how they're calculated.
• But it caps and how they're calculated.
• , where cities and towns are treated the same as far as tax caps and how they're calculated.
• , where cities and towns are treated the same as far as tax caps and how they're calculated.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Basically, what it amounts to is that MoDOT has sovereign immunity caps of 550,000, 529,000, whatever
• We're not offering them a cap of sovereign immunity by no means.
• I first started to present this bill, everybody came to me and said, hey, we need to raise MoDOT's caps
• Your cap is still in place. Your cap is still in place, right? That’s correct.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and directing money there um uh capped and directing money there um uh capped at<00:02:03.759>
• <00:02:10.879> and capped at a million dollars a year. and capped at a million dollars a year
• <00:43:59.760> Chairman, um, 50% with a cap of, Mr. Chairman, um, 50% with a cap of, Mr.
• <00:44:02.560> A<00:44:02.800> cap With a cap of a million dollars.
• <01:54:54.320> on collection of damages with a cap on collection of damages with a cap on

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So again, I come back to this is a pay-as-you-go kind of benefit, but it is capped based upon what we
• based upon what we determine are capped based upon what we determine are the<00:14:00.920> allowable
• Which I think is but you've capped that.
• at how much benefit we can capped at how much benefit we can provide.<00:26:39.440> All<00:26
• We look at how do we adjust, but it's always up there relative to how we are approaching capping that

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The speaker outlined Kentucky’s economic development strategy and how the cabinet evaluates and awards incentives. He emphasized using national benchmarks such as Site Selection and Area Development magazines, focusing on real data, competitiveness, and performance-based incentives. He said the state is performing well nationally in investment rankings, and credited the legislature with providing tools that help attract and retain jobs, especially through speed to market, site readiness, transportation, and workforce coordination. A major portion of the remarks described the “anatomy” of an incentive package: first improving sites and infrastructure such as water, sewer, roads, and rail spurs; then using sales tax benefits for construction materials and equipment; then training support through the Bluegrass State Skills Corporation; and finally the Kentucky Business Incentive (KBI) program, which reimburses qualifying expenses from incremental tax revenue. He said incentives are negotiated, data-driven, and targeted toward companies with strong wage levels, training plans, growth potential, and, in some cases, agricultural benefits or industry leadership. He also noted special treatment for heritage communities and said the state has expanded KBI beyond heavy manufacturing to include R&D, headquarters, and service businesses. The speaker also described compliance and oversight. Incentive agreements are written with job, wage, investment, and community-benefit terms, and companies must file regular reports and invoices. Cash incentives can be clawed back if commitments are not met, while tax credits are tied to actual investment and job creation. He said the Revenue Cabinet and Environment and Energy Cabinet play important monitoring roles, and that projects go through application review and preliminary approval by the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority before final approval and payment. He closed by thanking legislators for their support and for allowing more flexible, capped, and data-driven incentive tools.

Transcript Highlights:

• They did include within the Rural Health Transformation program a specific cap on provider payments,
• cap on provider<01:05:05.840> payments, provider payments, provider payments, uh<01:05:07.200
• And they put that cap at the uninsured.
• so we we are capped so we we are capped the<01:05:55.760> the<01:05:55.880> program
• c><01:05:57.720> what the the program itself caps us at what the the program itself caps us at

Bills: HB2246, HB2119, HB1929, HB1953, HB1572, HB2549, HB2594, HB2551, HB2595, HB2548, HB2459, HB1931, HB1604, HB1616, HB1736, HB2233, HB2241, HB1891, HB1803, HB2567, HB2534, HB2399, HB2172, HB1595, HB1811, HB2168, HB1780, HB1781, HB1785, HB2122, HB2012, HB2398, HB1779, HB2296, HB1894, HB1925, HB2019, HB1896, HB2294, HB2298, HB2300, HB2344, HB2345, HB2391, HB2037, HB2201, HB1941, HB1635, HB1943, HB2325, HB1926, HB2490, HB1710, HB2545, HB1976, HB2173, HB1804, HB1563, HB2015, HB1619, HB2475, HB1889, HB2367, HB2187, HB1765, HB1452, HB2231, HB1700, HB1705, HB1626, HB1897, HB1642, HB1523, HB2593, HB815, HB1655, HB1596, HB1732, HB1842, HB2476, HB2478, HB2022, HB1588, HB2575, HB1163, HB2153, HB772, HB1519, HB2050, HB2309, HB2147, HB2329, HB2274, HB2280, HB2547, HB2275, HB2452, HB2306, HB2148, HB2088, HB1764, HB2438, HB2117, HB1860, HB2604, HB2118, HB2017, HB2155, HB1832, HB2216, HB1601, HB1934, HB2297, HB2397, HB1893, HB2533, HB1890, HB2454, HB2004, HB2427, HB2207, HB1810, HB1840, HB1644, HB1645, HB1946, HB1648, HB2324, HB2323, HB1509, HB1514, HB1515, HB2164, HB2165, HB2283, HB1691, HB2386, HB2423, HB2121, HB1984, HB1593, HB1671, HB2619, HB1481, HB2314, HB2319, HB1643, HB2558, HB1864, HB1898, HB2214, HB2167, HB2488, HB2009, HB2007, HB322, HB1964, HB2218, HB2616, HB1535, HB1574, HB1977, HB2054, HB2046, HB146, HB2094, HB2181, HB2250, HB2515, HB2444, HB2385, HB1740, HB1724, HB1733, HB1799, HB1725, HB2049, HB2161, HB1970, HB2519, HB1790, HB2416, HB1873, HB2001, HB2151, HB1603, HB1880, HB1753, HB2198, HB1511, HB1991, HB2546, HB1615, HB1939, HB2140, HB2429, HB1870, HB1850, HB1782, HB2137

Keywords: agriculture, federal grants, Hawaii, grant administration, revolving fund, department of agriculture and biosecurity, grant compliance, financial support, coffee, pest control, subsidy program, coffee berry borer, coffee leaf rust, economy, biosecurity, invasive species, Molokai, advisory board, quarantine, environmental protection

Transcript Highlights:

• or state grant parameter changes, starting on line 79, line 81, the House is increasing its tuition cap
• Um, the House has increased its proposal for the four-year tuition cap to a 2% annual increase.
• <00:04:27.120> And<00:04:27.360> the cap to 2% per fiscal year.
• And the cap to 2% per fiscal year.
• And then, just for context, could you remind us what the income cap is for the Northstar Promise?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to lay emphasis to be available or revisit the monthly COLA cap as part of any COLA discussion
• It could include a cap.
• It might give authority for the cap to be decided by the actuarial or by the appropriate Ways and Means
• Like what you're suggesting, a bill draft, I think I just would need to know: do you want that to be capped
• Capped? Do you, and you might not have actuarial numbers at this point in time.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we urge you to strengthen this legislation, especially the return on equity cap to the original bill
• Removing key affordability provisions, especially the cap on shareholder profits, takes away the strongest
• We urge you to restore the return on equity cap and other core protections needed to make this bill truly
• I am not for caps. I think that's socialism.
• Socialism to put a cap on something. I just need to be able to explain to John and Mary Q.

Summary: The Committee on Regulated Industries met with a quorum and took up four bills. SB 288 on rural electric cooperatives was presented as a negotiated glitch bill to narrow statutory language so co-ops can choose generation and power purchases based on cost and reliability without exposure to special-interest litigation, while preserving consumer protections. A representative from the Florida Electric Cooperatives Association waived in support, and the bill was reported favorably. The committee then considered SB 364 on public accountancy, which was described as a modernization and efficiency measure to expand CPA licensure pathways without lowering standards. An amendment correcting a drafting error and restoring automatic mobility language was adopted without objection. Jason Harrell of FICPA waived in support, while one speaker appeared to discuss a utility issue unrelated to the bill. CS for SB 364 was reported favorably. Chair Bradley’s SB 200 on utilities addressed utility-scale solar decommissioning and storm protection plans. The bill would authorize counties to adopt solar decommissioning ordinances, direct DEP to develop best practices, and require the PSC to consider whether storm protection plan benefits exceed costs. County and AARP representatives waived in support, and the Small County Coalition spoke favorably, saying the bill was a needed step that did not restrict solar development. SB 200 was considered favorably. The committee also heard SB 126 on the Florida Public Service Commission, a strike-all bill focused on PSC reform and utility affordability. The amendment would add CPA and financial analyst expertise, require stronger PSC order support, tighten intervention standards, set return-on-equity and review criteria, require consideration of executive compensation and affordability, and direct the PSC to weigh risk from storm and cost-recovery mechanisms. PSC staff answered extensive questions about utility hardening, storm recovery, and rate-setting. Supporters said the bill would improve accountability and affordability, while others urged stronger enforceable affordability standards and restoration of the return-on-equity cap. Despite concerns, the bill was reported favorably as CS for SB 126.

Transcript Highlights:

• By lowering the charter net school spending cap, the state would be forced to eliminate thousands of
• Okay, and Section 4 addresses the cap on the underperforming type schools, right?
• Lowering the cap to 9% won't help anyone.
• This is our view: we wanted to maintain that 9% cap and not go further up.
• This is our view about that we wanted to maintain that 9% cap and not go further up.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education heard testimony on several bills centered on school accountability, receivership, graduation requirements, charter school access, community schools, school libraries, and student voting rights. Much of the discussion focused on the Thrive Act, S. 374, which would end state receivership and change the state’s accountability approach. Supporters, including educators, parents, advocacy groups, and students, argued that receivership has not improved outcomes in districts such as Lawrence, Holyoke, Southbridge, Boston, and the Dever, and that local communities should have more control, with greater emphasis on community schools, wraparound services, and broader measures of school quality. They also supported related bills on community schools and school library standards, and several witnesses backed a bill to expand student representative voting rights on school committees. Opponents of S. 374, especially charter school leaders, parents, students, and some education advocates, focused on Section 4 of the bill, which would change the charter school net school spending cap in the lowest-performing districts. They argued that the provision would reduce access to charter seats in communities where families are seeking more options, and that schools such as Roxbury Prep, Excel Academy, Brook, Veritas Prep, and Libertas Academy have produced strong results for students, including students of color, low-income students, and students with special needs. Several witnesses said the section would force schools to shrink or close and would remove opportunities for families in districts with long waitlists. Committee members questioned witnesses on both the effectiveness of receivership and the charter school cap language. Chair Lewis and Chair Gordon emphasized the need for a better accountability system and noted concerns about whether current measures, including MCAS-based designations, accurately reflect school quality. Some witnesses said they had discussed the possibility of removing Section 4 from the Thrive Act and suggested it might be addressed in separate charter reform legislation. No votes were taken during the hearing; testimony was received and the committee later closed testimony on S. 374 and several related bills before moving on to the student voting rights bill, S. 367.