Transcript Highlights:

• Um so in transfers andor provider taxes.
• And so the intergovernmental transfers.
• It's the county cap that's actually the intergovernmental transfer, and I think intergovernmental transfers
• intergovernmental transfer. Oh, sorry. intergovernmental transfer. Oh, sorry.
• If if I intergovernmental transfers.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee approved the previous meeting minutes and then reviewed a draft preliminary report on long-term managed care. The chair explained the report is intended to frame issues and outline legislative options, not make a final recommendation, especially given unresolved questions about the federal One Big Beautiful Bill (OB3). The report’s key issues included the current financing of county and private nursing homes through Medicaid rates, ProShare, MQUIP, and related funding mechanisms, and the concern that those payments could be affected or eliminated under a managed care model. Members also discussed managed care organizations’ role in Medicaid and cited other states’ experiences, noting examples of savings in Florida and Tennessee but higher costs in California. One member raised Indiana as another important comparison, and the committee agreed to add it to the report’s state examples. The committee also reviewed sections on dual eligibility, D-SNP, PACE, and CFI waivers. The chair raised concerns about whether OB3 creates incentives for states to move toward D-SNP and whether federal changes could affect provider taxes, state-directed payments, and intergovernmental transfers. Henry Litman, the state Medicaid director, said he would confirm details on D-SNP incentives and explained that ProShare is based on certified public expenditure rather than an IGT, while county cap financing is the relevant intergovernmental transfer issue. He said IGTs are not going away and that the main risk is whether current financing mechanisms could be preserved if the state later changed course. Members discussed the possibility of a waiver not being granted or renewed and the high fiscal impact that could have on counties and property taxes. The committee then discussed the population that any long-term managed care model should cover. Members agreed that there is no appetite to move developmental disability or acquired brain disorder populations into long-term managed care at this time, and the chair changed the report’s terminology from “elderly” to “aging population.” The chair also noted that the status quo option should reflect the recent shift toward home and community-based services and reduced nursing home utilization since earlier county reports. The report’s four policy options were summarized as: maintain the status quo; pursue D-SNP for dual eligibles, with DHHS potentially submitting an application as early as 2027; adopt an HCBS carveout; or move fully to managed care for the aging population. No final policy recommendation was made, and the committee discussed making edits to the draft before circulation, including adding Indiana, clarifying OB3-related issues, and changing the report title from “final” to “preliminary” or “interim.”

Transcript Highlights:

• These are not transfer. It's not income.
• <00:18:38.880> to collect interest that is transferred to collect interest that is transferred
• education trust fund funds transferred education trust fund funds transferred into<00:18:52.799>
• year we had to um request a transfer year we had to um request a transfer just<00:49:47.680>
• So, fiscal this past year granted us the transfer of additional funds.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Dedicated Funds met to review the House budget provision that would impose a 5% administrative charge on a broad list of dedicated funds, with some exemptions. Members discussed the House approach versus the Senate’s more general approach of leaving the governor discretion over which funds could be charged. The chair explained the committee was hearing from agencies about any legal, contractual, or practical reasons their funds should be exempt, and the agenda was expanded to include several departments and written submissions from others. The Department of Education testified first, identifying several funds it said should be exempt: a printing revolving fund that is funded by transfers rather than fees; teacher certification, which is self-funded by educator licensing fees and would require an immediate fee increase if charged; a vending stand set-aside tied to the federal Randolph-Sheppard program and subject to federal approval and vendor committee procedures; and a public school infrastructure/safety account, where most revenue is transferred from the education trust fund or general fund rather than generated by fees. Members questioned the department about the effect on school safety projects and whether the fee would simply reduce the number of projects completed each year. The Veterans Home asked for exemptions for three funds: a donation benefit account used for recreational activities and quality-of-life expenses for residents, a small memorial trust fund whose interest supports veteran activities, and a resident member account that holds veterans’ personal income such as Social Security and pensions. The department argued the charge would reduce donations, cut services, and effectively function like an income tax on vulnerable veterans. The Banking Department also requested exemption for its consumer credit administration license fund, saying it is used to keep exam fees low and is expressly intended by statute to reduce costs on regulated businesses; it said the 5% charge would undermine that framework and could eventually force higher fees. The Department of Justice began testimony on its dedicated funds, starting with the medical legal investigative fund, which pays for death investigations and related services under statute and without general fund support. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the committee mainly heard testimony and asked questions about the practical and legal effects of applying the administrative charge.

Transcript Highlights:

• with workforce demands, transfer with workforce demands, transfer opportunities,<00:07:44.880>
• Anyway, that bill required that the two systems work closely together to develop meaningful transfer
• Anyway, that bill required that the two systems work closely together to develop meaningful transfer
• So I don't believe the transfer may be a small enough concern for me to be concerned about.
• Um, it's my transfer process from the community transfer process from the community college<00:30:00.720

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met to review the annual report on collaboration between the University System of New Hampshire and the Community College System of New Hampshire, and the meeting began with approval of the prior minutes and a gubernatorial proclamation recognizing the community college system’s 80th anniversary. Both chancellors praised the proclamation and described the report as a statutory follow-up to the public higher education task force. They said the two systems have built a close working relationship and that the collaboration is intended to continue, though progress may be limited by resources and staffing changes. Much of the discussion focused on transfer pathways and new academic models. The chancellors said House Bill 1530 helped drive the creation of more than 100, and possibly about 130, “universal pathways” between the systems, with a reported 30% increase in community college associate-degree graduates transferring to the university system in the last academic year. They also discussed direct-admit outreach for community college graduates, early college and CTE-to-workforce pathways, and the development of three-year bachelor’s programs at Plymouth State and in some health-care fields. Members asked about nursing, allied dental health, and radiologic technology, and the chancellors said they are exploring whether some programs can be streamlined, while noting that nursing’s requirements may limit how short a pathway can be. Members also raised concerns about whether transfer pathways could affect university enrollment, but the university chancellor said declining enrollment is more likely due to a smaller pool of college-age students and broader competition, not the transfer programs. Another topic was the ERP/technology platform recommendation from the task force: the university system is moving to Workday, while the community college system is working to align business practices and move from an on-premises system to a cloud-based solution. Officials said a shared enterprise system could create efficiencies in the future, but it is not expected in the short term; student-facing tools like Canvas are already shared. The committee also discussed House Bill 112, which would require passing a civics test for graduation, and the chancellors said they support civic education but see implementation challenges. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving the report.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's also the off-the-top transfer from the Educational Excellence Trust Fund and also...
• There's also the off-the-top transfer from the Educational Excellence Trust Fund and also transfers from
• Then there was another transfer in April of 2024... Of the FY24 projects.
• So you'll see in FY25, there were zero transfers.
• However, they can be transferred within each other to meet needs at the district level.

Summary: The House and Senate Education Committee first approved minutes from February 2 and 3, then took up an interim study proposal on adult education and the Excel Center model. Representatives from Goodwill Industries of Arkansas, the Excel Center network, and the University of Notre Dame’s Lab for Economic Opportunities testified that roughly 300,000 Arkansans over age 19 lack a high school diploma or GED, and argued that the Excel Center provides a supported diploma pathway for adults who struggle with GED testing. Witnesses highlighted wraparound services such as free child care, transportation assistance, tutoring, life coaching, and career services, and cited outcomes including high retention, growing enrollment, and research showing higher employment and earnings and lower criminal justice involvement for graduates. Committee members raised questions about the state’s role, existing adult education programs, and how the study would be structured; the motion to adopt the ISP passed, though there was some procedural disagreement about when questions should have been taken. The committee then heard a detailed adequacy funding overview from BLR staff Katie Walden and Adrian Beck on Arkansas K-12 education finance. They reviewed national funding principles and explained Arkansas’s system, including state and local revenue sources, the Public School Fund, the Educational Excellence Trust Fund, the Educational Adequacy Fund, and the Facilities Partnership Program. Staff said K-12 state and local revenues totaled $6.6 billion in 2025, with foundation funding making up the largest share of district and charter funding, followed by additional, categorical, and supplemental funds. They also explained the matrix-based foundation formula, the role of the uniform rate of tax, and how categorical and supplemental funds support areas such as alternative learning, English learners, special education high-cost cases, teacher salary equalization, declining enrollment, and student growth. Members asked several follow-up questions about how specific funding categories are defined and used, including student support staff, instructional aides, special education high-cost occurrences, ALE funding, teacher salary equalization, and the inclusion of Excel Center amounts in state-local funding totals. Staff said some of those details would be addressed in a later presentation and offered to provide additional records, including district lists and historical information. The meeting ended after the funding overview, with no additional votes or actions beyond the ISP adoption and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our leadership mobilized by protesting water transfers.
• Each transfer of water right would piecemeal dismantle the Asequia, and If enough transfers happened,
• Like I mentioned, we have the ability to regulate water transfers.
• The transfer of this lake has been under deliberation for 7 years.
• The other one is a full report by the director to the committee on the Oowinga BLM transfer.

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, you've got the fund transfer, or not finally, but the fund transfer line in Section 10, that's
• Transfer, or not finally, but the fund transfer line in Section 10, that's not spending authority.
• in fund transfers.
• I'd like to not make that transfer.
• This fund transfer you have here on line 335 would be a general fund transfer in FY26.

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<00:04:36.479> a appropriation, a transfer, a appropriation, a transfer, a cancellation,<
• transferred to the special<01:15:57.840> revenue<01:15:58.239> fund.
• This money is transferred to the special revenue fund.
• So here you can see the reduction of $9 million per biennium for that transfer.
• summer electronic benefit transfer summer electronic benefit transfer support.<01:25:17.360>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It is vastly under-resourced and is essential to our transfer students.
• It is vastly under-resourced and is essential to our transfer students.
• actually did wind up transferring during the years of the audit.
• Transfer students, as you know, you look at two-year, four-year, six-year.
• And then our transfer students are about 2.3 campuses.

Summary: The joint Assembly Higher Education and Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the future of the California State University system, with opening remarks emphasizing CSU’s major role in California’s economy, workforce, and degree production. Chairs and members said the hearing was intended to inform 2026 budget decisions and to examine three main issues: declining enrollment at some campuses, cost controls and possible consolidation, and oversight of recent state investments at campuses such as Humboldt and Sonoma. The meeting was briefly delayed by microphone and sound problems before reconvening. The first panel featured CSU Academic Senate Chair Dr. Elizabeth Boyd and Cal State Student Association Vice President Katie Karam. Boyd urged the Legislature to protect academic freedom, strengthen faculty governance, provide stable ongoing funding, end unfunded mandates, support student food and housing security, fund flexible course schedules, improve transfer systems such as ASSIST, avoid over-centralizing academic programs, protect immigrant students, and expand intersegmental collaboration. Karam said students are feeling the effects of budget shortfalls through fewer course sections, reduced advising and services, longer time to degree, and tuition pressure, and she called for transparency, meaningful student involvement in budget decisions, and sustained state investment rather than cuts that harm the student experience. The second panel covered enrollment management and included CSU Chancellor’s Office and campus administrators from Chico State, Cal State L.A., and San Diego State. Dr. Delcy Perez said CSU Forward and the new systemwide enrollment plan are aimed at expanding access, aligning programs with workforce needs, and increasing resident enrollment; she reported systemwide enrollment gains and strong application numbers, including a direct-admissions pilot that expanded from Riverside to more campuses. Campus representatives described local recruitment and retention strategies, including early outreach to high school students, community college partnerships, guaranteed admission programs, and expanded advising and student support. San Diego State highlighted record enrollment and high demand, while Cal State L.A. described efforts to recover from impaction and rebuild enrollment. Members pressed CSU officials on the accuracy of enrollment data, the gap between funded targets and actual enrollment, and the system’s reallocation formula. CSU staff explained that campuses below target will see a 5% ongoing reallocation beginning in 2026-27, with one-time reserve funding also being directed to campuses that can grow, and that fiscal health reviews have been completed for 21 of 22 campuses. Legislators also asked about turnaround plans required by the budget act; CSU said those plans are being developed and will be shared in the spring after campus consultation. No formal votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm just interested in focusing a little bit more on the transfer, or the ability to transfer, electronic
• I'm just interested in focusing a little bit more on the transfer, or the ability to transfer, electronic
• Digital transfer. Okay.
• Digital transfer. Okay. And are Yeah. Digital transfer. Okay.
• <01:03:27.839> of<01:03:28.160> electronic about a transfer of electronic about a transfer

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Over an acre of state-owned land was transferred from DOT to OMB.
• For the first item, there's $140 million that's transferred to the general fund.
• is anticipated to be transferred in December of 2026.
• Thank you. and there is a $2.5 million transfer from SIF for that program.
• It also provides information regarding what the transfer to the Legacy Earnings Fund is.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Budget Section Leadership Division met with a quorum and approved the March 18 minutes. The committee first heard an update from the Petroleum Council on oil and gas activity in North Dakota. Ron Ness said production is expected to remain relatively flat at just under 1.2 million barrels per day, with efficiency gains and longer laterals helping offset lower rig counts. He discussed oil and gas prices, gas taxation, flaring concerns, northward movement of drilling activity, and the importance of new infrastructure and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) pilots. Members asked about gas taxation, natural gas liquids, pipeline impacts, and the outlook for Continental and other operators. Ness said the industry is likely to remain steady rather than see a major ramp-up or decline. Matt Pearl of the State Tax Department then explained the federal “big beautiful bill” and its effect on North Dakota income tax collections. He said the law extends or makes permanent several federal provisions and creates temporary deductions for seniors, tips, overtime, and auto loan interest, with the biggest state impact coming from the standard deduction increase and business tax changes. He revised earlier estimates downward, saying the net cash impact on state collections is likely in the $30 million to $35 million range after accounting for business prepayments and one-time FY25 oilfield transaction effects. Committee members asked which provisions apply to standard versus itemized returns. OMB staff gave a detailed update on major capital projects and facility funding. Topics included Capitol grounds improvements such as 18th-floor renovations, wayfinding, seating, lighting, tree management, and restroom and lobby upgrades; security work at the governor’s residence, which has been delayed by the discovery of human remains; and space reconfiguration efforts in Bismarck-Mandan to reduce leases and create shared offices and conference rooms. They also reported on the State Facility Maintenance Fund, including roof, window, boiler, and kitchen projects at state facilities, and on the state hospital project in Jamestown, which remains on budget and on schedule for substantial completion in winter 2027 and opening in spring 2028. OMB also updated the committee on the Minot North Central State Office Building, the use of federal State Fiscal Recovery Funds, and the status of legislative intent and trust fund reports, including school aid turnback, the school construction loan program, the Foundation Aid Stabilization Fund, the Legacy Fund, and the Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund. The committee ended by discussing future agenda items, including government efficiency, cash management, Bank of North Dakota lines of credit, and the rural health transformation program, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Over an acre of state-owned land was transferred from DOT to OMB.
• For the first item, there's $140 million that's transferred to the general fund.
• million is anticipated to be transferred in December of 2026.
• Thank you. and there is a $2.5 million transfer from SIF for that program.
• It also provides information regarding what the transfer to the Legacy Earnings Fund is.

Summary: The Budget Section Leadership Division met with a quorum present and approved the March 18 minutes. The committee first heard an update from the Petroleum Council on oil and gas activity, which described North Dakota production as holding steady around 1.1 to 1.2 million barrels per day despite lower prices and market volatility. The presentation emphasized that efficiency gains, longer laterals, and improved completion technology are allowing operators to sustain output while activity shifts north in the Bakken. Members asked about gas taxation, natural gas liquids, flaring, and enhanced oil recovery; the witness said gas is taxed by volume, most liquids are handled through oil lines or gas processing, and the state’s EOR pilot projects and new gas infrastructure are intended to help hold production flat and expand future recovery. The committee then received a presentation from the Tax Department on the federal “big beautiful bill” and its effect on North Dakota income tax collections. The department explained that most of the federal changes were extensions of existing Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions, but several items — including the larger standard deduction, senior deduction, tip and overtime exclusions, auto loan interest deduction, and business expensing changes — affect state collections. Revised estimates showed a smaller-than-expected impact on individual income tax, with the department suggesting a net cash effect in the range of roughly $30 million to $35 million when business and individual effects are combined, plus a possible one-time distortion from large oil-field transactions in fiscal year 2025. Members asked which provisions apply to standard versus itemized returns, and the department clarified that most of the individual provisions apply broadly, while the SALT-related item is itemizer-specific. OMB then reported on major capital projects and facility funding. Updates included Capitol grounds improvements such as 18th-floor renovations, wayfinding, augmented reality displays for the Rough Rider Hall of Fame, tree management and lighting studies, and restroom and parking reconfiguration in the tower. OMB also described security upgrades at the governor’s residence, where human remains were discovered on site and are being handled with historical and legal review. The state hospital project in Jamestown remains on schedule for substantial completion in winter 2027 and opening in spring 2028, with costs currently estimated a little over $292 million and a line of credit expected to be drawn in April 2027. The North Central State Office Building in Minot is under construction, with a $5.6 million line of credit already accessed. OMB also reported on the State Facility Maintenance Fund, noting about $1.1 million spent so far on projects such as the Liberty Memorial Building roof and foundation work, Capitol window replacement, boiler replacement, and kitchen remodeling. Finally, Legislative Council staff reviewed the interim compliance report on legislative intent and state trust funds. The report highlighted the status of multiple lines of credit, including those for the state hospital and Minot office building, and noted that the executive budget will likely need to include repayment planning for about $350 million of expected outstanding balances. Other updates included the Bank of North Dakota profit transfer schedule, litigation pool spending, the new Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship, the Missouri River Correctional Center planning effort, HHS items such as FMAP and child care assistance, Job Service’s unemployment insurance modernization project, and DPI school aid turnback estimates. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a public entity, and it is able to accept transfers of property, in particular when there is
• a public-to-public transfer of property.
• Our public-to-public transfers right now, we're working with Tacoma Public Utilities.
• We have not broken ground, but we did transfer our first property.
• So now we're going to be able to transfer these. Really, people put their homes on credit cards.

Summary: The committee met for work sessions on land banking/shared homeownership and on maximizing existing housing stock. Members first heard an overview from Commerce on alternative homeownership models, including community land trusts, limited equity cooperatives, condominiums, accessory dwelling units, middle housing, church land for housing, and public land transfers. The discussion focused on how these models can help households build equity while keeping housing permanently affordable. Committee members asked about statewide counts of co-ops and land trusts, and Commerce said it does not track all of those entities directly. Pierce County staff then described the Pierce County Community Development Corporation’s rapid acquisition fund and its role in acquiring, holding, and transferring public land for affordable housing. They said the county used general fund and affordable housing sales tax dollars to buy properties, preserve a manufactured home park through resident ownership, and create a pipeline of sites for future development. Members asked about the advantages of a public development authority, funding sources, the use of surplus and underutilized public property, and how the model works with housing authorities. Spokane land bank staff followed with testimony that land banks can reduce blight, preserve affordability, and help nonprofits acquire land quickly, but that holding costs and taxes can make the work harder without state support. They also described brownfield assessments, donated properties, and work on Black homeownership and public surplus properties. The committee then heard from the Northwest Cooperative Development Center on limited equity cooperatives, especially in manufactured housing communities. The witness said Washington now has about 43 limited equity co-ops and that recent subsidy funding and legislation have accelerated resident purchases of manufactured home communities. Members asked how residents benefit from capped equity, how values are affected, and whether the model improves access to lending; the witness said the model stabilizes costs, allows modest equity gains, and that a recent law allowing manufactured homes in co-ops to be titled as real property should improve access to traditional financing. The committee also discussed House Bill 1974 from the prior session and possible updates to land banking legislation. In the second work session on maximizing existing housing stock, Commerce reviewed recent housing laws and implementation timelines, including ADUs, middle housing, condo liability reform, SEPA changes, tiny homes, and co-living. Members raised concerns about the long implementation horizon, vacancy data, corporate ownership of homes, and the need for better support for small landlords and first-time ADU owners. Sightline then testified on mobile dwelling units, arguing that RVs, tiny houses on wheels, and similar units are a low-cost, quick-to-install housing option that is often blocked by zoning; the witness said many Washington residents already live in these units, often informally. Finally, AARP discussed housing options for older adults, including ADUs, missing middle, manufactured home communities, co-living, universal design, and village-style support models, emphasizing aging in place and the need for more accessible, affordable housing choices.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are appropriation and/or fund transfer requests.
• Special language allows transfers up to twice a year after approval by the state CFO and ALC.”
• Special language in the DFA allows the transfer after approval of the CFO and review by ALC.
• Chair, those are all the transfer requests.” “All right, thank you, members.
• The transfers are also related to pay plan implementation. All right, thank you, members.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, opened with a prayer recognizing the death of Reverend Jesse Jackson, and then worked through a series of appropriation and transfer requests. In Section B, it approved a $273,000 temporary appropriation for the Department of Labor and Licensing. In Section C, it approved two Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act requests: $280 million for the Department of Transportation and $195 million for the State Broadband Office to support Arkansas BEAD broadband grants, including an extra help position. Members questioned the broadband awards, provider amendments, buildout timelines, accountability, and the status of unawarded locations; the broadband director said no provider had requested speed changes, awards would be monitored with milestone-based payments, and remaining locations would be addressed later as federal guidance is received. The committee also approved transfers in Section D, including $458,000 for the Department of Correction, $25 million for Department of Education programs such as declining enrollment and teacher incentive funding, and $229,000 for Shared Administrative Services project management support. In Section E, the committee considered a $4.7 million budget stabilization trust fund loan for the Office of State Technology to implement ServiceNow and related IT modernization, cybersecurity, and governance tools. Members pressed agency officials on repayment, cost savings, and whether the loan would simply roll over existing costs; officials said repayment would come through agency rates over a five-year period and that the new payment would be lower than the current loan being retired. The committee voted to give favorable advice to the Governor on the loan request. In Section F, the committee reviewed cash fund requests for wage and hour claims, unclaimed property, and a heritage grant; in Section G, it reviewed a $1.1 million federal grant to expand college and career coaching in rural districts; in Section H, it reviewed pay plan and performance fund requests totaling millions across multiple agencies; and in Section I, it reviewed budget manual formatting changes. The latter part of the meeting focused on reports, especially the Medicaid trust fund. DHS and DFA officials reported the fund balance had declined from prior years and was down to about $394 million after seven months, with further decline expected by year-end. Senators and representatives asked about the appropriate reserve level, the impact of pending Medicaid rules and legislation, FMAP changes, and whether additional funding would be needed in the upcoming budget. Officials said projections are updated regularly, more than 10 rule packages remain pending with CMS, and the governor and legislative leaders will discuss additional capital needs during budget development. Members also discussed the importance of balancing Medicaid spending with new federal funding and maintaining flexibility for critical areas such as labor and delivery. The committee then adjourned without further action on the reports.

Transcript Highlights:

• We had two... ...transfers within the system, and I'll go into that a little later.
• And then as part of the feedback from the board, we did remove SUS transfer...
• So we developed a transfer student outcome metric as part of the expansion of the transfer metric, metric
• So we have the expanded transfer metric to now be two five-point parts.
• And now we have the four-year graduation rate for all other transfer students.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education met to hear two presentations focused on the state university system: an update from the Board of Governors on performance-based funding and a state university efficiency study from Ben Watkins of the Division of Bond Finance. Chair Harrell emphasized accountability, maintaining Florida’s top-ranked higher education system, and getting the best return on state investment. A quorum was present, with several senators excused and one arriving later in the meeting. Sarah Donaghi outlined changes to the performance-based funding model. She said the current model will be used for 2026-27 funding, with only minor benchmark changes for metrics tied to programs of strategic emphasis, reflecting a statutory review that reduced the list of designated programs from about 800 to about 200. She also described a new “PBF 2.0” framework approved by the Board of Governors for implementation in 2027-28 funding, which will combine excellence and improvement measures, update benchmarks to the SUS 2030 strategic plan, reduce “layups” where many schools score perfect tens, expand the affordability metric to include students without loans, remove SUS transfer students from certain graduation metrics, and create a new transfer-student outcome metric. The board will run the new model alongside the current one before using it for funding, and no funding changes will occur this year. Watkins presented findings from an eight-month efficiency study ordered by executive order. Using audited financial data, student outcome data, and personnel data, he concluded that Florida’s universities provide strong value because of low tuition, rising degree production, and improved job placement and earnings outcomes. He said tuition remains the lowest in the country and that state support has increased, while per-student spending has also risen, driven largely by payroll costs. He argued that universities should operate more like business enterprises, with more granular budgeting, clearer financial reporting, and efficiency metrics such as operating expense per student and cost per degree, and he recommended that such measures be incorporated into performance funding and board oversight. Committee members asked about national comparisons, data transparency, payroll growth, admissions selectivity, and whether legislation should require more detailed institutional reporting. The meeting ended with no public comment and adjournment after Senator Bracey Davis moved to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• . ...is for the nonprofit prior to transfer of home ownership, and one of the questions that has come
• up is how many units are transferred for home ownership.
• Once it's transferred, the property owner is entitled to other property tax breaks for senior citizens
• The benefit does not transfer to the low-income home buyer, and you're absolutely correct.
• And we aren't advocating for this tax exemption to transfer to the home buyer.

Summary: The Citizens Commission for Performance Measurement of Tax Preferences met on September 22, 2025, confirmed a quorum, and unanimously approved the August 6, 2025 meeting minutes. The main business of the meeting was public testimony on the 2025 tax preference reviews, with Commissioner Forsyth recusing himself for the first witness, Joey Halverson of Tote Maritime Alaska, who testified in support of the tax preference for natural gas as a transportation fuel. He argued that LNG has enabled major emissions reductions, supported infrastructure at the Port of Tacoma, and should continue to receive tax preferences to encourage further clean maritime fuel adoption. The second witness, Michelle Preston of Habitat for Humanity of Washington State, testified in support of the tax preference for low-income homeownership developers. She said the preference helps Habitat affiliates advance homeownership and sustain operations, but noted that reporting has been inconsistent across independent affiliates and that JLARC’s metrics may not fully capture the program’s benefits. Commissioners asked questions about affiliate accounting, the distinction between benefits to nonprofits versus homebuyers, and whether the reporting/renewal period should be shorter than the current seven years; Preston said the preference benefits the nonprofit developer, not the homebuyer, and suggested shorter renewal periods might improve compliance and awareness. JLARC staff then outlined the process for the commission’s upcoming comments on the 2025 tax preference reviews. Commissioners will receive a web-based comment form, with responses due September 30, the chair will compile consolidated comments, and those materials will be distributed for the October 21, 2025 meeting. The chair noted that only voting members will complete the comment forms, though individual members may also submit minority reports. The meeting ended with a reminder that written testimony could still be submitted to JLARC and that the next commission meeting is scheduled for October 21, 2025.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:26:14.799> to Minnesota hiring bonuses transferred to Minnesota hiring bonuses transferred
• Uh section 7 transfers program.
• to that grant program being transferred. to that grant program being transferred.
• to those program transfers.
• <01:01:02.319> of different work for future transfers of different work for future transfers

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is the technology transferable to other types of weapons, other types of guns? It is not.
• So it's not transferable to other firearms or a retrofit kit or something like that.
• This is important because whatever mechanism would be used for, for example, an estate sale transfer,
• All transfers, of course, go through a gun store. There’s a background check, et cetera.
• What would you have to do to wipe out that information upon transfer? A great question.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met for its fourth hearing on emerging firearm technology, focused on personalized firearms and related privacy issues. Co-chairs noted the commission’s charge to study personalized firearm incentives, risks from digital manufacturing codes and AI, and the costs of requiring personalized firearm and microstamp technologies, and said the report deadline is being extended to July 31. They also announced the next public hearing for April 17 at 11:00 a.m., limited to Massachusetts residents. The first witness, Kai Kloepfer of Biofire, described the company’s personalized 9mm smart gun and argued it is designed to prevent unauthorized use through biometric authentication, local encrypted data storage, no wireless connectivity, and automatic disarming when released. He said Biofire opposes any mandate requiring personalized firearms, calling such mandates a de facto gun ban that would stifle innovation, limit consumer choice, and burden a still-developing market. He said the company has a patent portfolio, has received thousands of pre-orders, is shipping in all 50 states, and is approved for sale in Massachusetts; he also said the gun costs about $1,500, is currently sold online, and is intended mainly for home defense. Members questioned him about sales, manufacturing, battery life, repairability, transfer of ownership, possible expansion to other firearms, and whether microstamping could be incorporated. A Massachusetts firearms roster official, Michaela Dunn, explained the state’s testing and approval process for handguns and confirmed that the Biofire firearm is now on the Massachusetts roster and commercially available for retail sale in the state. Kate Crockford of the ACLU of Massachusetts testified only on facial recognition, warning that commercially available systems show significant demographic bias and that Massachusetts lacks comprehensive biometric privacy protections. She urged passage of pending data privacy and biometric privacy bills, including the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act and related measures, before any broader use of biometric verification in firearm laws. Commissioners discussed privacy concerns, and Biofire said its system is zero-knowledge and would likely comply with stronger biometric privacy laws. No votes were taken and no formal action was reported beyond the scheduling announcement and the extension effort.

Transcript Highlights:

• We believe that the transfer fee provides that locally generated revenue.
• To testify in support of S. 1434, a luxury real estate transfer fee.
• With a transfer fee, our transfer fee has been very successful in supporting the efforts of open space
• And that's exactly what this transfer fee would do.
• The transfer fee is imperative to be able to do this. The commission supports the transfer fee.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government held a long public hearing focused mainly on two sets of issues: proposals to amend or repeal the MBTA Communities Act, and bills to allow local rent stabilization. Committee chairs opened by explaining the hearing would be tightly managed because of the very large number of speakers, with testimony limited to two minutes per person and written testimony still accepted by email. Members and witnesses were called in a mix of in-person and virtual order throughout the hearing. On the MBTA Communities Act, several legislators and local officials argued the law is too rigid and should be revised to account for local conditions. Speakers from small, rural, or infrastructure-limited communities such as Hanson, Halifax, Marshfield, Winthrop, Dracut, Carver, Rehoboth, and others said the law’s one-size-fits-all approach does not fit towns with limited water, sewer, transit access, or buildable land. Some filed bills would repeal the law, exempt certain communities, or create appeals processes based on infrastructure, environmental, or historical constraints. Supporters of the law’s changes emphasized local control and the need to avoid forcing development where communities believe it is impractical or inconsistent with town character. A large portion of the hearing was devoted to rent stabilization legislation, especially S. 1447 and related House bills. Supporters included legislators, city councilors, tenant advocates, labor leaders, housing nonprofits, public health organizations, and residents who described sharp rent increases, displacement, homelessness risk, and the strain on working families, seniors, students, and people with disabilities. They argued local-option rent stabilization would let municipalities cap excessive increases and prevent no-fault evictions while preserving flexibility for local conditions. Opponents, including small landlords and property owners, said rent control would discourage investment, worsen housing quality, burden responsible owners, and drive small landlords out of the market. Some witnesses also supported a Cape Cod/Island transfer fee bill and a suburban infrastructure fund, arguing those would provide local revenue for housing or roads. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and the Pacific City Transfer Station.
• We do have five transportation transfer stations already in our county. Sorry.
• We have three transfer stations.
• We have three transfer stations. And for us, it is a transportation issue.
• I'm just talking about this one facet, the transfer station facet.

Summary: The task force met to focus on funding systems and incentive structures for a proposed regional waste infrastructure effort, including how a future WIPA framework might support solid waste planning in the Willamette Valley. Staff and members heard presentations from DEQ on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, from Business Oregon on the Special Public Works Fund, and from Oregon State Treasury on state bonding capacity and the bond issuance process. Presenters explained how their programs are structured, how projects are scored or approved, what kinds of public entities and projects are eligible, and how interagency coordination and co-funding can work. DEQ emphasized that its revolving loan fund is driven by water-quality benefits and public-health criteria, while Business Oregon described a broader infrastructure loan program for public entities with no scoring system, and Treasury outlined the state’s debt-capacity process and the differences between general obligation and lottery bonds. Members used the presentations to discuss whether similar funding tools could support solid waste infrastructure, especially for transfer stations, regional hubs, and related facilities that may need to be built before Coffin Butte reaches the end of its lifespan. Several questions centered on whether public-private partnerships could qualify, whether equipment inside facilities could be financed, how repayment would work, and whether planning costs could be covered. DEQ and Business Oregon both said they could potentially collaborate on scoring or co-funding, but noted eligibility limits and the need for public ownership in many cases. Treasury said bond capacity is limited and competitive, especially for lottery bonds, and that project authorization generally runs on a two-year cycle, though unused authority can sometimes be reauthorized. In task force discussion, members debated whether the group should pursue a dedicated funding lane for the seven-county region rather than having local governments compete with other statewide needs. Some members stressed the importance of criteria to avoid stranded assets and to ensure funding is available when projects are ready, while others raised concerns about how cities and counties would generate revenue to repay debt during construction and early operations. The group also discussed flow control, system fees, and the need for regional collaboration among counties, cities, and haulers to create enough waste volume to support new infrastructure. Staff noted that pre-session filing materials for the legislature are due September 11, and the chair said the August meeting will focus on organizational structure and identifying partners. During public comment, Representative Kevin Mannix submitted written testimony supporting the WIPA concept and urging the task force to endorse it. Commissioner Bubba King of Yamhill County urged the task force to compare alternatives objectively and warned against adding bureaucracy before evaluating existing infrastructure and costs. Commissioners Kevin Cameron and Roger Nyquist of Marion and Linn counties described regional hub-and-spoke concepts, transfer stations, and intermodal options, emphasizing the need for planning, strategic siting, and collaboration with haulers and local governments.

Transcript Highlights:

• of genet genetic to the use and transfer of genet genetic data. data. data.
• , transfer and retain genetic<00:39:17.119> data.
• <00:40:29.760> disclosure transfer disclosure transfer disclosure of<00:40:31.520> the<
• <00:40:45.280> The<00:40:45.520> consumer's transfer of disclosure.
• The consumer's transfer of disclosure.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House opened with a devotional, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the formal swearing-in and seating of newly appointed Representative Jack Bighgam of St. Albans Town, who was also assigned to the Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry. The chamber then introduced House bills 911 and 912 and referred them to the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry Committee and the Judiciary Committee, respectively. Several other bills were referred to money committees under House rules, including H.558 and H.775 to Ways and Means and H.632 and H.778 to Appropriations. Members also made announcements recognizing visiting groups, including fire and rescue personnel, community action agencies, 4-H participants, and other guests, along with caucus meeting notices. The House then took up H.907, a Government Operations and Military Affairs Committee bill to review and repeal outdated reporting requirements. The committee explained that the bill categorizes reports into those repealed, those to be reviewed again in four years, and those retained permanently, with an effective date of July 1, 2026. The committee reported unanimous support, and the House ordered the bill to third reading after agreeing to the committee recommendation. Next, the House considered H.205, dealing with agreements not to compete and stay-or-pay provisions. The Commerce and Economic Development Committee described the bill as generally prohibiting non-compete agreements, especially for lower-wage workers, while allowing narrow exceptions, and limiting stay-or-pay provisions to voluntary, reasonable, and clearly disclosed arrangements. During questioning, a member raised concern about a specific carveout for teacher contracts, arguing it could be used to restrict teacher mobility; the presenter said the language was intended to clarify that the bill did not conflict with existing teacher-contract law. The House adopted the committee amendment and ordered the bill to third reading. The House then began second reading of H.639 on genetic data privacy. The committee described the bill as creating strong protections for consumers’ genetic information, requiring express opt-in consent for collection, use, disclosure, transfer, retention, and marketing uses; allowing revocation of consent; requiring deletion of data and biological samples upon request; restricting storage and transfer outside the United States; and prohibiting disclosure to insurers, employers, and most government access without a warrant. The committee also said the bill would impose security requirements and anti-discrimination protections, and the detailed presentation continued as the transcript ended.