Transcript Highlights:

• plan to help control costs.
• to do what we can to bring down costs.
• I understand that when lumber costs go up, that increases the cost, but that increases the cost across
• It was costing our members $200,000 just in upfront cost to fill out an application, and therefore we
• It was costing our members 200,000, just an upfront cost to fill out an application.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Committee on Director Nominations met to consider Ruby Dylan Williams for Director of the Arizona Department of Housing. Chair Jay Kaufman opened with remarks about the committee’s role in scrutinizing nominees’ commitment to faithfully executing state law. Williams, who has served in housing roles since 2020 and as interim director since March 2025, described her background in both public service and the private sector and said her priorities would be expanding housing supply, preserving housing stability, and improving technology-driven operations and transparency. Members questioned Williams extensively about department oversight, fraud prevention, auditor general findings, homelessness policy, budget priorities, and the cost of affordable housing programs. She said the department had strengthened internal controls, added verbal verification steps for wire transfers, increased site inspections and grantee monitoring, and was tracking 68 performance metrics. She also defended the use of LIHTC and other federal housing programs as key public-private tools, said the department was working on a real-time homelessness data system, and explained that if state funding were cut, staffing would likely be reduced before core programs. Several members pressed her on past fraud and audit findings and on whether the department had been sufficiently proactive in preventing them. Public testimony was overwhelmingly supportive. Developers and industry representatives praised Williams’ experience, her knowledge of housing finance, and her role in streamlining the qualified allocation plan and improving the department’s responsiveness. They argued that her leadership has helped attract investment and increase housing production in Arizona. After debate, the committee voted 3-2 to recommend Williams’ confirmation to the full Senate, with Senators Kavanagh and Shope voting no and Senators Bravo and Ortiz voting yes.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're asking the committee to allocate $1.25 million.
• So we would like to see additional money allocated to scale up the program.
• The state has an outstanding loan to help augment costs for the interest payment.
• That funding allocation has slowly declined.
• While state costs to administer programs, of course, have increased with cost of living and inflation

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• TRS is also ambitious and cost-effective.
• Counties will now need to cover the care and supervision costs another way.
• be provided to cover those costs.
• First, there's the question of new administrative costs.
• How do we define what is a new cost and what is not?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, according to this formula, the total cost of an adequate education is $819 million. cost at this
• So that is in the cost per pupil.
• costs real life costs conal um presented costs real life costs that<02:07:20.199> were<02:07:
• know cost some costs out inadequate know cost some costs out inadequate education<03:49:14.800><
• <04:06:29.279> the<04:06:29.560> cost meet the foundation budget cost the cost meet

Keywords: 928, house, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Allocated. Will be out. But once it's out, then what?
• So the fund reimburses a portion of their payroll costs.
• And so this would reduce funding for allocation three programs.
• These mandates are estimated to cost $3.7 million one time.
• Entails total one time cost of $3 million to $4 million.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:34:57.200> in conditions since the first allocation in conditions since the first allocation
• <00:43:23.040> reviews program funding allocation reviews program funding allocation reviews
• For these programs, we do allocate facilities and administration costs linked to the awards, and those
• funding that's allocated funding that's allocated for<00:46:57.559> the<00:46:57.720>
• :47.079> costs<00:47:47.559> um facilities and administration costs um facilities and administration

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That has the effect of costing the state more for its share of medical assistance.
• So the waiver enrollment numbers are real in real terms. of cost the state having to put up more of cost
• Average cost per recipient increases.
• CADI begins in 2022 and 2023 with an average cost per recipient of $46,000 to $74,000 per recipient.
• Let's say you have a grant at DHS that costs X dollar amount.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The actual cost is at least 50% higher based on our 2024 county data.
• be provided to cover those costs.
• First, there's the question of new administrative costs.
• How do we really define what is a new cost and what is not?
• Child support does have a very strong connection to cost avoidance.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held an informational hearing on child welfare, foster care, child support, and related prevention efforts. The chair opened by emphasizing mandated reporting reform, foster care system improvements, and community-based prevention, and noted that no votes would be taken. Public testimony focused first on mandated reporting, where a lived-experience advocate and several organizations argued that the current system overreports families, especially Black, Native, and Latino families, causes trauma, and should be reformed through standardized training, clearer thresholds, and stronger community supports rather than more hotline referrals. Casey Family Programs cited data showing nearly 90% of reports are unsubstantiated, while CDSS said it is already forming a Mandated Reporting Advisory Committee, updating training, and exploring community pathways and possible changes to the list of mandated reporters. CWDA and SEIU supported training and alternative response concepts but stressed child safety, county capacity, funding, and the need for careful implementation and accountability. The committee then discussed a proposal to create a foster care multi-agency office within the California Health and Human Services Agency, led by a chief foster youth advocate with authority to coordinate across departments. Advocates said foster youth often need services from education, health, housing, and behavioral health systems that do not coordinate well, and argued that a central office with real authority could improve placement stability and access to services. CDSS responded that existing structures already provide coordination, including AB 2083 interagency teams, the Child Welfare Council, complex care steering committees, and the foster care ombudsperson, but said it was open to technical assistance. Members raised concerns about whether the new office would have enough authority and funding to avoid becoming another layer of bureaucracy, and the chair emphasized the need for real “teeth” and better interagency action. The final major topic was the continuation and expansion of Promise Neighborhoods. A community leader described strong early results from the state-funded neighborhoods, including improved kindergarten readiness, reduced chronic absenteeism, higher graduation rates, food access, housing supports, and mental health services, but warned that current funding sunsets in June 2025 and that a fiscal cliff could jeopardize staff and services. CDSS said the four funded neighborhoods have reported positive outcomes and valuable flexibility, but also noted challenges with one-time funding, student mental health, and long-term planning. Assemblymember Mia Bonta urged continued investment, saying the place-based model is difficult to rebuild once lost, and the chair asked LAO to help identify the minimum funding needed to preserve the existing infrastructure while evaluation results are still pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I guess along those lines, what we just saw on that last slide is the cost to build, not the cost
• we've got staffing costs of $12 million. we've got staffing costs of $12 million.
• And if you did, what was that cost?
• An added benefit is equipment cost and associated equipment maintenance cost.
• Uh equipment maintenance uh cost.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee heard from the Department of Corrections first about Wellpath’s medical services contract and the contractor’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy. DOC officials said Wellpath’s reorganization plan was confirmed in May 2025, the contract was automatically assumed, and services have continued without lapses. They said DOC has not seen any reduction in care, staffing problems, or known impact on Kentucky operations, and that DOC and health services staff meet with Wellpath almost weekly. Members asked whether “emergence” meant discharge from bankruptcy; staff clarified that Wellpath has not yet been discharged and is still in the process of paying debts. The discussion then shifted to the Department of Juvenile Justice’s proposed high-acuity juvenile mental health treatment facility. DJJ said the facility is still in the conceptual and preliminary programming stage, with no full design funding yet and no entry into the formal A/B process with DECA. The proposed facility would have 24 beds total, split into 16 clinical beds and 8 assessment/stabilization beds, and would need to separate males and females as well as high- and low-risk youth under Senate Bill 162. Officials said the concept was developed with DJJ and CHFS mental health staff and outside design experts, and that the project was submitted in the capital plan for consideration. Members questioned the need for the facility, the estimated construction and staffing costs, and whether the state has enough youth to justify it. DJJ said the number of youth needing this level of care changes frequently, that they currently have one youth in Pennsylvania and typically send one to five youth out of state each year, and that out-of-state placement is increasingly difficult. Officials argued that a dedicated facility would reduce delays, keep youth closer to home, and avoid the need to retrofit multiple detention centers. Some members expressed concern that the projected operating costs seemed high compared with the small number of current out-of-state placements, and asked for more information on annual out-of-state spending and the number of youth who would qualify for the facility.

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, ramping up the cost of programs, there were hiring challenges, etc.
• We have seen estimates of workload data and potential costs to the courts.
• the cost of continuing to confine them and keep them in custody.
• He told us that there would be cost savings in that. Can you guess? There's been none.
• The reality is the allocation is too small. to support the program.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• budget plus additional funds allocated budget plus additional funds allocated from<00:01:29.119>
• The changes which reduce program costs.
• There's no cost for this provision.
• Chair, is it eliminates the costs, both the requirement and the allocation of the costs to the unemployment
• 01:52:30.880> the allocation of the costs to the allocation of the costs to the um<01:52:33.760

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And these are anticipated revenues that will be set aside for allocation in next year's budget.
• In addition to addressing ongoing cost pressures for schools, these funds will also offset costs for
• We need to make sure when these funds are allocated, there's accountability and transparency.
• We need to make sure when these funds are allocated, there's accountability and transparency.
• So we cover the cost initially, and then these costs are reimbursed by the federal government.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the final three-party agreement for the 2026-27 state budget and 19 implementing bills, including two budget bill juniors and 17 trailer bills. Committee leadership and administration officials described the budget as a balanced plan that reduces out-year structural deficits, maintains large reserves, and makes major investments in health care, education, housing, child care, public safety, and other core services while also responding to expected federal cuts and fiscal uncertainty. The Department of Finance outlined the package’s major components, including Medi-Cal adjustments, education funding increases, higher education changes, child care and human services updates, housing and homelessness funding, energy and transportation provisions, and tax and general government changes. Members asked questions about several provisions, including CSU enrollment targets and turnaround plans, the Prop. 98 settle-up mechanism, the plastics market development payment program, housing accountability measures, NextGen 9-1-1 implementation, and veteran services. Staff and administration witnesses explained that the higher education language is intended to improve campus-by-campus reporting and oversight, that Prop. 98 settle-up would be finalized later through the statutory certification process, and that NextGen 9-1-1 now includes one-time funding, quarterly reporting, an independent technical review, and a state audit. Members also discussed the HAP homelessness funding increase to $900 million and the balance between accountability and timely distribution of funds. The most extended exchange centered on comparisons between funding for veterans and Medi-Cal/immigrant health coverage. Republican members argued the budget spends far more on undocumented immigrant services than on veterans, while Democratic members and Finance staff responded that the comparison was misleading because many veterans’ services are federally funded and the state budget also includes dedicated veteran support. The chair and other members emphasized that the budget reflects difficult tradeoffs and that the package protects vulnerable populations, preserves health care access, and advances affordability. No final vote was described in the excerpt, but members indicated support for the overall package and said they would support it on the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• And another $13 million will go toward reimbursing the T for the Sumner-Tunnel closure costs of FY23
• Sumner-Tunner closure costs of FY23 and FY24.
• On the education side, we heard from many of you about the explosion of cost growth, the explosive cost
• This formula ensures a fair share of... ...the high cost of doing roads.
• The $50 million allocated in this amendment,... ...road infrastructure cannot be overlooked.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The House opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and adopted two ceremonial resolutions: one commemorating the dedication of the Woburn Battle Road Memorial as part of the Massachusetts 250th celebration, and another recognizing May 1-7 as Elks National Youth Week. The chamber then took up House Bill 4005, a fiscal year 2025 supplemental appropriations bill using FY24 Fair Share surtax surplus funds, and ordered it to a third reading before later considering it for passage to be engrossed. During debate on the bill, the House heard a lengthy presentation in support of the proposal, which would direct about $828 million to transportation and $353 million to education. The transportation spending was described as primarily supporting the MBTA, including workforce and safety funding, reserve replenishment, station and infrastructure improvements, reduced fares, and reimbursement for tunnel closure costs, along with smaller amounts for regional transit authorities and unpaved roads. The education side included additional special education circuit breaker funding, vocational school capital, early education workforce supports, early literacy, universal school meals, higher education endowment matches, Green School Works, and ESOL waitlist reduction, with the Inspector General directed to review circuit breaker cost controls. Members then debated several amendments. One amendment related to a school athletics policy was modified by a further amendment calling for DESE analysis before implementation; both the further amendment and the underlying amendment as amended were adopted. A transportation amendment to shift $50 million from MBTA funding to Chapter 90 municipal roads was supported by members emphasizing rural road needs but was rejected on a roll call, 25-120. Another transportation amendment adding at least $300,000 for Route 93 mitigation costs in Medford was adopted, 133-20. The bill itself then passed to be engrossed on a roll call, 140-14. The House also observed moments of silence for former First Lady Kitty Dukakis and for victims of the Santo Domingo nightclub collapse, and later adopted an order to meet the next day at 11 a.m. before adjourning in memory of former Representative Philip W. Johnston.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so has that cost been run, Mr. Chair? Has that cost been run through DO-IT?
• costs, vehicle leases, and GSD expenses.
• the cost of home health is not enough.
• It costs money, but it saves money.
• Obviously, we have to observe those costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• total cost of replacement value. total cost of replacement value.
• sparsely allocated across the state. sparsely allocated across the state.
• cost of replacement. cost of replacement.
• cost requests in the future. cost requests in the future.
• Are you going to costs.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Allocated so that's 250 million dollars And we are popular in Texas. exploding in Texas.
• The state flood plan that costs is around $54.5 billion.
• I don't know if you guys track the increase in cost. year over year.
• That cost in that reported water loss.
• Is there also any information in relation to the cost of the consumer?

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, like, when you look at just the cost In a while, right?
• looking at a map and trying to allocate where seats are needed the most.
• So some are partially, you know, they're splitting the cost of the care.
• Those have to be spent specifically on the items for which they're allocated.
• Those have to be spent specifically on the items for which they're allocated.

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the prior minutes and then shifted to an update from Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith on early childhood education, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. They said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ABC as a large state program with about 23,800 funded slots and roughly $114 million in annual appropriations. Department officials said they are reviewing slot allocations because about 1,000 seats are funded but unfilled, while more than 2,000 families are on waiting lists, and they plan to reduce or reallocate slots from providers that have not filled them over several years. They also said they are examining whether income thresholds, curriculum expectations, daily rates, and summer programming should be updated, and members raised concerns about access, local control, transportation, and whether the program should better align with K-12 choice and school readiness goals. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical data and other information for future discussion. The committee then received a legal presentation from BLR attorney Taylor Lloyd on the constitutional and statutory framework for education adequacy in Arkansas. She reviewed the Dupree and Lake View cases, explaining that the state must maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools, and that adequacy and equity are distinct but related concepts. She emphasized that the General Assembly is responsible for defining adequacy, studying whether the system meets that standard, and reacting to the evidence, while the courts ultimately decide constitutional compliance. Lloyd also explained the current adequacy definition, the role of the matrix as a funding tool rather than a spending mandate, and the distinction between unrestricted foundation funding and restricted categorical funding. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum followed with a historical overview of how Arkansas responded to the court cases and developed the current adequacy process. She traced major legislative actions from the 1980s through the Lake View litigation, including the creation of funding formulas, categorical aid, isolated funding, declining enrollment funding, and the 2003-2004 adequacy study that led to the Continuing Adequacy Evaluation Act and the matrix used to set foundation funding. She also described later changes to the adequacy statute, the financial reporting requirements for districts, and the ongoing use of surveys, stakeholder testimony, and consultant studies in the biennial adequacy process. Members asked questions about whether private or homeschool programs could use public funds for expenses like utilities, whether stakeholders should include those groups, the difference between average daily membership and attendance, and whether school board members are surveyed; staff said those issues would need further research or were outside the scope of the presenters’ role.

Transcript Highlights:

• But these are the initial allocation percentages.
• That's about a 58% allocation in the first year.
• That has a 16.2% allocation.
• Secondly, unallowable costs and limitations: pre-award costs.
• Secondly, unallowable costs and limitations: pre-award costs.

Bills: HB1623

Keywords: HB 1623, North Dakota, rural health, rural health transformation program, medical facility infrastructure loan fund, medical facility infrastructure loan program, rural health loan program, Bank of North Dakota, Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, federal grant, health care infrastructure, rural hospitals, critical access hospitals, nonprofit health care providers, gap financing, loan fund, public health funding, healthcare financing, Medicaid

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 1623, the appropriations bill tied to North Dakota’s Rural Health Transformation Program, which is funded through a new federal rural health care grant. Senator Bekkedahl explained the bill’s background, the interim committee process that developed it, and the federal conditions attached to the award, including spending deadlines, administrative cost limits, and restrictions on uses such as new construction, supplanting existing funding, and certain other costs. Legislative staff then walked through the seven sections of the bill, including appropriation authority, transfer authority, contingent appropriations for pass-through grants, procurement and public improvement exemptions, recipient reporting, legislative reporting, and immediate effective date. Commissioner Traynor and HHS staff described how the department plans to implement the program, emphasizing that the funding is intended to improve rural access, workforce recruitment and retention, technology and data connectivity, and community health initiatives. They said the department will rely on local applications, technical assistance, templates, listening sessions, and partnerships with providers, schools, public health units, tribal entities, and other community groups. Members asked about reimbursement timing, upfront costs, administrative expenses, sustainability after the five-year grant period, and whether CTE centers, public health units, gyms, grocery stores, and other community partners could participate; the department said yes, within program rules and with a focus on measurable outcomes and sustainability. Several supporters testified in favor. Mental Health America of North Dakota and the Mental Health Advocacy Network supported the bill and urged investment in community-based mental health, crisis response, children’s services, peer support, and mobile crisis teams. HIA Health described the grant as a chance to expand home-based and hospice care, noting that rural providers already have workable models but need funding to scale them. A cybersecurity representative also supported the bill, warning that the large amount of health data and AI-related tools will require strong data protection and professional support. The hearing was closed with no opposition testimony, and the committee announced it would return later in the day for further work on the bill and other measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, for an ABC student, roughly the cost per student that is paid is $5,105.
• And if we do, then do you allocate those slots somewhere else?
• We are also very interested in the actual cost of care, so it's been a...
• The cost of that grant.
• overhead costs or grants to programs that's not directly supporting families?

Summary: The committee met to review the minutes and then held a workshop-style discussion with Arkansas Department of Education early childhood officials about the state’s early learning programs, funding, and access. Officials explained that the state-funded ABC program has been largely flat for years, rising from $11 million to about $14 million in 2018, while the federally funded SRA/CCDF side is much larger. They described differences between the programs, including ABC’s 10-month school-year structure, current enrollment of about 23,000 children in ABC and about 14,871 in SRA, and a SRA wait list that has grown to roughly 2,971 children. Members raised concerns about rural access, school-based versus community-based providers, reimbursement rates, and the need to align early childhood funding with K-12 and kindergarten readiness goals. A major topic was the recent $14.741 million PDG B-5 competitive grant. Officials said it is a one-year systems-building grant, not a direct services grant, and will support local leads, CLASS observations, workforce efforts, and data systems while helping offset some costs that otherwise would have been paid through CCDF. Members also discussed the end of a federal pre-K funding stream in June, with children either moving into ABC slots or requalifying for SRA, and the state’s new enrollment-based payment approach, which officials said saved about $576,000. The committee also heard that the current cost-of-care study is about three years old and that a new market-rate survey is being planned. Several members questioned dual enrollment in home visiting/HIPPY and ABC, with officials saying about 1,200 children are enrolled in both and that limiting double enrollment could save about $2.4 million and affect roughly 470 children. Members also asked about provider closures after rate changes; officials said eight providers cited funding as a reason for closing, while 26 new providers have been added under the new rates. The discussion ended with broad agreement that the committee should continue regular updates, keep providers and families informed, and explore policy changes, waivers, and possible state investments to improve stability, access, and quality in early childhood education.

Transcript Highlights:

• their costs going through the roof. their costs going through the roof.
• increases the cost to our counties." increases the cost to our counties."
• an impact to lower the cost of housing. an impact to lower the cost of housing.
• The PCA costs are assessed back to the program, so only the PCA's costs are carried here.
• costs. That's all I had. Thank you. costs. That's all I had. Thank you.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee took up Senate File 203, a broad housing bill authored by Senator Port. Port described the measure as a package including $50 million in housing infrastructure bonds, MHFA administrative and investment reforms, expanded Greater Minnesota infrastructure grants for workforce housing, manufactured housing bill of rights provisions, and a private equity restriction on large investors buying certain single-family homes starting in 2026. Fiscal analyst Eric Olafson walked through the spreadsheet and said the $50 million bond authorization would add debt service costs over time, with the total estimated debt service for that authorization at about $75.8 million. Senator Draheim raised concern about the growing cost of bonding and said the state should rely more on cash than debt. The committee then adopted two technical amendments. The A21 amendment, described by Port as correcting manufactured housing bill of rights language, aligning MHFA board meeting language, conforming a lived-experience exemption to federal law, and fixing a capacity-building grants reference, was approved without objection. The A20 amendment, offered by Draheim, was also adopted and would give the legislature more control and visibility over MHFA funding and how quickly program dollars are reinvested after agency operations. Members then debated Draheim’s A22 amendment, which would delete the manufactured home park provisions from the bill. Draheim and several Republicans argued the section could function like rent control, could burden good park owners, and might have unintended consequences for park operations and purchases. Port, Senator Boldon’s allies, and other supporters said the provisions were needed to protect residents from rent spikes and private equity abuses in manufactured home communities, where residents own their homes but not the land. The transcript ends during that debate, before any final disposition on A22 or the bill itself is shown.