Transcript Highlights:

• Selection would be approved, but the commission could say no.
• Well, they proceed with the process, because OA has to start the process. So put out an RFP. RFP.
• I understand the process. OA would do the RFP.
• So the selection and the process for an owner's rep uses the state's qualification-based selection process
• That process, you guys will go through... Question.

Summary: The Missouri State Capitol Commission met with a quorum present and approved the minutes from its November 3, 2025 meeting. Members also discussed tentative meeting dates for 2026, including May 4, August 3, and November 2, all at noon. A representative from the Missouri Department of Conservation then provided an update on the America 250 “Liberty Tree” effort, explaining plans to plant a heritage white oak-family tree at the Capitol Complex in late March and to identify and map surviving historic Liberty Trees across the state. The main substantive discussion focused on the Capitol restoration project and the need to hire an owner’s representative. Members reviewed the construction subcommittee’s work, Parsons Engineering’s review, and the goal of keeping the project within the $595 million budget while addressing restoration, ADA, HVAC, mezzanines, fiber optics, and parking needs. After clarifying the procurement process, the commission voted to authorize the Office of Administration and FMDC to prepare an RFQ/RFP for an owner’s representative, subject to appropriations, with the understanding that the commission will later review and approve the selection process and candidate recommendations. Commission staff also explained that the owner’s representative selection would use the state’s qualification-based process, including an open solicitation, scoring, a shortlist of three, interviews, and a final recommendation, with the process expected to take about 19 weeks. Near the end of the meeting, a member moved to approve planting the Show-Me 250 Liberty Tree on the Capitol grounds, and the commission unanimously approved that motion before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• And, you know, why have this big process for something that we already know is going to be approved?
• process elsewhere.
• We are not on pace, and one of the main reasons for that is California's slow process of approving homes
• This is a process bill. That's about process streamlining, and time is money.
• This is a process bill. That's about process streamlining and time is money.

Committee: Senate Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> approve the minutes as a group. approve the minutes as a group.
• The minutes are approved. Thank you it. The minutes are approved.
• </c> review uh process. review uh process.
• </c> the complaints process. the complaints process.
• </c> approval on 25-304. approval on 25-304.

Summary: The meeting began with quorum and seating issues, including the temporary appointment of Representative Shaw to fill in for a House member, followed by approval of the previous minutes and the consent calendar. Two items were then postponed to next month: Mechanical Licensing Board item 25-241 and Board of Veterinarian item 25-223. The committee then took up Department of Energy rulemaking on distributed energy resources interconnection procedures, including items 25-220 and related sections on fees, additional controls, and equipment. The Department explained revised language to address concerns that the original draft improperly suggested agency or PUC approval of utility fees; under the amended language, utilities would set fees designed to recover costs, with complaints handled through existing complaint procedures. Committee members and the Department discussed the statutory basis for that approach, including cost responsibility versus fee-setting authority. Public testimony was mixed. A small solar developer argued the rules still exceed statutory authority, impose unfair costs on customer generators, and allow utilities to shift transmission-related study costs onto interconnecting customers. Clean energy advocates supported the Department’s revised language but asked for clearer limits on charging customers for later-added controls, arguing costs should be tied directly to the customer’s interconnection and not to later utility-driven changes. Eversource supported the revised fee language, said most prior concerns were resolved, and recommended conditional approval, while also suggesting a minor wording change in the “Additional Equipment” section to clarify that only operational performance is covered.

Transcript Highlights:

• all FDA-approved products, including?
• That's what the scientific process is about.
• process.
• and that it's about post-approval tracking.
• Clinical and non-clinical testing are both very important parts of FDA's drug approval process.

Committee: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee

Keywords: nominations, labor, health, veterans, Social Security, Elon Musk, transparency, government accountability

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on various executive nominations and their implications on labor and health affairs. Significant discussions surrounded the nomination of Mr. Sonderling as the Deputy Secretary of Labor, with members expressing concerns about workforce cuts affecting veterans and Social Security employees. There was also a debate led by a member regarding the authority and influence of private individuals, specifically citing Elon Musk's involvement in government decisions. Such discussions raised questions about transparency and accountability within governmental agencies, leading to a proposal for Mr. Musk to provide testimony before the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• The application process is a paper-based process, and we need to look at what an institution is telling
• The application process is a paper-based process, and we need to look at what an institution is telling
• That's for approved institutions.
• If there is an institution that is operating without approval, but is subject to approval requirements
• Do you keep track of the complaints from students who finish that process, the tuition recovery process

Transcript Highlights:

• I move we approved docket 58-0... Representative Bruce. I move we approve docket 580101-2501.
• Hearing none, docket is approved. Next step. Thank you. Docket is approved.
• opposed hearing none the docket is approved.
• I ask the committee to approve pending docket 58-112-2501, and I... ...the committee to approve pending
• Chairman, I move to approve docket number 58-112-2501. I move to approve docket number 58-112-2501.

Committee: House Environment, Energy and Technology

Transcript Highlights:

• The journal is approved. The motion passed as the journal is approved.
• a process to go in the other direction.
• a process to go in the other direction. on behalf of the judges, but they do have a process because
• The title is approved. The bill will be transmitted to the Senate. The title is approved.
• Those plans were approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• It provides an expedited, if you could call it that, 6-month expedited approval process through the PRC
• The bill streamlines the approval process for infrastructure development, which is much needed in this
• I'm not sure if you heard that earlier, but essentially the approval process is 6 months for the site
• My next question with respect to the PRC: the changes that I understand take a 6-month approval process
• This is simply on the approval process. Thank you.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• The journal approved.
• The title is approved. The bill will be transmitted to the Senate.
• However, there are costs associated with that process.
• It's difficult to go through this process.
• The state is in the process of pursuing several large contracts.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I actually love the idea of having a pre-approval process to speed and just helping our developers
• It's incredible that they actually have an expedited approval process for development, and I thought,
• This legislation aims to streamline the housing approval process, targeting areas where housing developers
• I'm actually supportive of the intent of the bill, which is to expedite the approval process.
• The bill is intended to accelerate one portion of the approval process for affordable housing projects

Summary: The committee began without a quorum and first heard AB 748, which would create pre-approved housing plans for single-family homes and small multifamily projects under 10 units, with delayed implementation for smaller cities and counties. The author said the bill is modeled on the state’s ADU preapproval process and is intended to make housing approvals ministerial and faster. Support came from housing and business groups, while several cities opposed it. Senators raised concerns about local control and whether small or rural jurisdictions have the staff and infrastructure to implement the program, but the author emphasized that local agencies would still control the plans and land-use decisions. No vote was taken because there was no quorum. The committee then heard AB 1621, which would tighten timelines and accountability for post-entitlement permits, limit plan-check resubmittals, and restrict field changes unless needed for health and safety. The California Building Industry Association and many housing groups supported the bill, arguing that permitting delays raise costs and slow housing production. The League of California Cities, counties, and several local governments opposed it, saying the two-plan-check limit is too rigid and that the bill could create litigation risk and reduce local flexibility to ensure code compliance. Members debated the proper standard for additional review and whether the bill should allow exceptions for state mandates; the author said the bill was meant to stop endless back-and-forth while preserving health-and-safety exceptions. The bill was recommended for a due-pass motion to Appropriations when quorum is reached. AB 2748 was next, proposing a three-year delay in the new electric-vehicle readiness requirements for 100% affordable housing projects, keeping the older 40% standard during that period. The author and affordable housing advocates said the change would reduce costs and help scarce housing dollars go further, while opponents from environmental, transportation, and clean-energy groups argued the current code is already cost-effective and that the bill would create a double standard and reduce EV access for low-income residents. Senators discussed whether the bill should require additional EV-capable infrastructure if projects use the older standard, and several members said they supported the bill but urged continued work on amendments. The committee also heard AB 1732, which would expand CEQA streamlining to student housing projects at public universities and community colleges with long-range plans. The author and student housing advocates said campus housing shortages are driving student homelessness and that the bill would help projects move faster; some senators supported the concept but questioned the bill’s geographic limits and whether labor standards or rural-campus criteria might be too restrictive. The meeting also included AB 1738, which would require jurisdictions to offer virtual inspections for certain simple home inspections. Supporters said remote inspections save time and money and have been used safely in California, while one senator said she could not support virtual inspections for more complex items like roofs and solar work. No final votes were taken during the transcript, and several bills were held pending quorum or further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• But what I learned coming from local government is that control of approval processing and, you know.
• .. ...of approval processing and comprehensive plans, those things need to be in the hands of local government
• Yeah, you want our approval. You're going down to three.
• That's where DRIs kind of got approved.
• And you'd probably get approvals on it, and it would probably be approved the same way.

Bills: S0330 , S0354 , S0504 , S0506 , S0526 , S0594 , S0840

Committee: Senate Community Affairs

Keywords: firefighter disability, law enforcement disability, correctional officer disability, correctional probation officer, presumptive disability, workers' compensation, line of duty presumption, heart disease presumption, hypertension presumption, tuberculosis presumption, public safety employees, first responders, physical examination, preemployment exam, medical specialist, Medicare reimbursement, employing agency, Florida Statutes 112.18, Florida Statutes 943.13, occupational disease

Transcript Highlights:

• All in favor of approving a motion to approve the agenda. Page Motion. Second.
• So, that one was approved in 21. That's 11 years.
• And because of that, it's a process.
• Process. Thank you, Secretary. Yes, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to note that May 7th is the. Process.
• That's a critical part of this process.

Committee: House Public School Capital Outlay Oversight Task Force

Transcript Highlights:

• So then once we determine at the end of that process, the board approves a final program, that would
• So part of the regulatory process when it comes to having the board approve the fee is we have to set
• ratification process.
• One is the department is still in the process that's before the regulatory process.
• If the legislature approves permanent staff and ultimately CARB's regulatory process decides to maintain

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> approval of the staff amendments? approval of the staff amendments?
• approved approved in<00:10:32.760><c> Kentucky.
• These are already<00:10:39.000><c> approved</c> already approved already approved areas<00:10:41.000>
• </c> approval of the staff amendments? approval of the staff amendments?
• So, our prior authorization process process process we<00:19:09.040><c> try</c><00:19:09.240><c> to</

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the prior meeting’s minutes, and then reviewed a series of administrative regulations from multiple agencies. Most of the regulations were presented as technical updates or policy clarifications, and in each case the committee approved staff-suggested amendments without objection. The Department of Revenue regulation would delete a section on tax credits for trusts and estates to align with statute. The Kentucky Public Pensions Authority package updated definitions, sick leave credit rules, hazardous/non-hazardous employment participation, refund procedures, contribution limits, mortality table references, and incorporated federal tax references. The Board of Medical Licensure regulations addressed renewal and activation of inactive physician-assistant licenses and renewal/reinstatement timelines for athletic trainer licenses. The Fish and Wildlife regulations revised rules for Otter Creek and Peabody areas by deleting definitions and creating shooting-range permit exemptions. The committee also heard emergency vocational rehabilitation regulations that would clarify definitions, due process rights, federal compliance, service fees, in-state service preferences, and service-specific requirements; a workforce insurance regulation updating contribution/reporting rules for professional employer organizations; and a horse racing regulation adding license categories for allied animal health professionals, animal chiropractors, and equine dental providers, while updating fees, application timing, and special events licensing. Members asked questions about the horse racing licensure changes, and the agency explained they were responding to prior session changes and adding guardrails, including veterinarian sign-off for equine therapist licensure on the back side of a racetrack. The Department for Public Health package made several personnel and salary-related changes for local health departments, including salary ranges for new hires, probation and evaluation rules, salary increases after probation, and limits on certain leave payouts for employees who separate without proper notice or are dismissed for cause. The Office of Inspector General regulation added electronic prescription references and removed authority to create a new prescription number for partial dispensing of Schedule II prescriptions. The Department for Medicaid Services regulations updated provider group definitions, removed some service limits, required prior authorization for all genetic testing for non-MCO recipients, changed physician fee schedule updates from quarterly to annually, and added reimbursement for department-approved vaccines. Members asked detailed questions about genetic testing prior authorization and sleep disorder coverage; the agency said prior authorization is intended to take two to five days and that sleep disorder services generally involve sleep apnea-related treatments such as CPAP machines and sleep studies. The committee then adjourned and announced its next meeting for Tuesday, May 12 at 1:00 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• But what I learned coming from local government is that control of approval processing and, you know.
• .. ...of approval processing and comprehensive plans, those things need to be in the hands of local government
• That's where DRIs kind of got approved.
• And you'd probably get approvals on it, and it would probably be approved the same way.
• And you'd probably get approvals on it, and it would probably be approved the same way.

Bills: S0330 , S0354 , S0504 , S0506 , S0526 , S0594 , S0840

Committee: Senate Community Affairs

Summary: The committee took up several bills related to public safety, housing, disaster recovery, construction, and land use. SB 330 clarified the heart disease presumption for firefighters, law enforcement, and correctional officers, aligned the definition of heart disease with medical practice, and allowed a transferring law enforcement officer to rely on a prior physical if the new agency does not provide one. An amendment stating the act serves an important state interest was adopted, and the bill passed unanimously after supportive testimony from law enforcement and fire groups. SB 594 expanded local housing assistance eligibility to residents of mobile home communities, including SHIP rental assistance for lot rent and rehabilitation/emergency repair programs for the home itself; it also passed unanimously after support from manufactured housing advocates. SB 840 revised the hurricane-related land use limits enacted in prior legislation by sunsetting certain temporary restrictions on June 30, 2026, narrowing the affected area from 100 miles to 50 miles from a storm track, and exempting certain planning, water, wastewater, stormwater, and flood-related decisions. The sponsor said the bill was intended to fix unintended consequences of prior hurricane recovery legislation, and the measure was reported favorably on a unanimous vote. SB 526 addressed commercial construction projects by prohibiting “no damages for delay” clauses in public construction contracts, directing the Florida Building Commission to create a uniform commercial permit application, requiring permit fee reductions when private providers are used, and adding mitigation to product approval categories; county representatives raised concerns about implementation and fees, but the bill passed favorably. The committee also approved SB 504 and SB 506, both by Senator Burgess, creating a framework for code inspector body camera use and a related public records exemption for recordings. Both were described as optional for local governments and were reported favorably without opposition. Finally, the committee considered CS/SB 354, a major “blue ribbon projects” bill creating a framework for very large developments that would reserve at least 60% of land for conservation, agriculture, recreation, utilities, and related uses in exchange for streamlined approval and state preemption over local land use controls. The bill drew extensive testimony both for and against, with supporters emphasizing housing supply and land preservation and opponents warning about local control, sprawl, infrastructure costs, and weak conservation protections. Two amendments were adopted to define reserve areas more specifically and address conservation easements, and the committee reported the bill favorably on a divided vote, with Senator Passidomo voting no.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> forward on this to get the process forward on this to get the process moving<00:21:43.760><c> so
• </c> amendment is there a motion for approval amendment is there a motion for approval the<00:26:40.480
• </c> outline requirements for board approved outline requirements for board approved CE<00:30:39.440>
• </c> amendment is there a motion for approval amendment is there a motion for approval of<00:35:38.160
• </c><00:55:18.400><c> is</c> I guess the ranking that is approved is I guess the ranking that is approved

Summary: The subcommittee met with a quorum, approved the minutes, and welcomed new members before taking up Council on Postsecondary Education regulations 13 KAR 2:120 and 13 KAR 2:130. The regulations, as amended by staff and agency amendments, update public university and KCTCS performance funding models to conform to 2024 Senate Bill 191 and the performance funding work group’s recommendations. Changes discussed included replacing the underrepresented minority metric with an underrepresented students metric defined as first-generation students, adding an adult learner metric, increasing the low-income degree premium, adjusting small-school and nonresident credit-hour weights, revising data aging and progression metrics, and adding STEM+H criteria in 13 KAR 2:120. Travis Pal of the Council on Postsecondary Education explained that the changes reflect the work group’s three-year review process and that the work group ultimately voted to define underrepresented students as first-generation students and to apply half-weighting between research and comprehensive universities for the new metric. Michael Frasier of the Kentucky Student Rights Coalition and Eastern Kentucky University student government opposed 13 KAR 2:120, arguing that the regulation improperly applies weights where the statute does not clearly authorize them and that the funding changes disadvantage comprehensive universities and vulnerable students. He asked the committee to find the regulation deficient or, alternatively, recommend legislative clarification and a revised fiscal analysis. Pal responded that weighting has been part of the model since 2017, that CPE was following the statute and work group recommendations, and that the model could be changed by future legislation. Members asked about the timing of the broader performance funding review, and Pal said the full model is reviewed every three years, with the next work group cycle beginning in 2026. No motion to find the regulation deficient was made, and the committee allowed the regulations to proceed to the committee of jurisdiction. The committee then approved a staff amendment to Teachers’ Retirement System regulations 102 KAR 1:195 and 102 KAR 1:340, which require annual reporting of accumulated sick leave, leave policies, and salary schedules to TRS and make technical changes to the final average salary calculation and related definitions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Selection would be approved, but the commission could say no.
• Selection would be approved, but the commission could say no.
• I understand the process. OA would do the RFP.
• The selection and the process for an owner's rep uses the state's qualification-based selection process
• We are approving the planting of the tree. Thank you. Pass.

Summary: The Missouri State Capitol Commission met with a quorum present and approved the minutes from the November 3, 2025 meeting. Members also discussed tentative future meeting dates for 2026 and received an update from the Missouri Department of Conservation on a Show-Me 250/Liberty Tree planting planned for the Capitol Complex at the end of March, along with a broader effort to identify and map historic Liberty Trees across the state. The main substantive discussion focused on the Capitol restoration and improvement project. The commission reviewed the construction subcommittee’s work, including multiple concepts for addressing restoration, ADA access, HVAC, mezzanines, fiber optics, interior restoration, and parking needs, all within the $595 million budget. After discussion about how to structure the procurement process, the commission approved a motion authorizing the Office of Administration and FMDC to prepare an RFP for an owner’s representative, subject to appropriations by the legislature and governor. Staff then explained that the owner’s representative selection would use the state’s qualification-based process, with an open solicitation, scoring, shortlisting, interviews, and a final recommendation, with the timeline estimated at about 19 weeks. The commission also approved the planting of the Show-Me 250 Liberty Tree on Capitol Complex grounds, after being told the location would not interfere with the proposed master plan footprint.

Transcript Highlights:

• The minutes of June 18, 2026 are hereby approved. The minutes of June 18, 2026 are hereby approved.
• Service Commission for approval.
• approved without our cover.
• process.
• That process takes a long time.

Committee: Senate Environment, Energy & Transportation

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on energy, public safety, and environmental cleanup. House Bill 455 would create a historic preservation license plate to raise funds and awareness for Delaware preservation efforts, and House Bill 471 would tighten rules and penalties for off-highway vehicles on shared private roads, with golf carts excluded. House Substitute No. 1 for House Bill 439, the Truth in E-Bike Marketing Act, would require clearer disclosures when selling electric mopeds and electric motorcycles so consumers understand classification, power, and licensing/insurance requirements. House Substitute No. 1 for House Bill 407, related to the Hazardous Substance Cleanup Act and brownfields, would shift funding for brownfield cleanup from the original realty transfer tax approach to a dedicated share of the hazardous substance cleanup fund and raise civil penalties for fraudulent acts. The committee also approved the June 18, 2026 minutes once quorum was reached. Most of the meeting centered on House Substitute No. 1 for House Bill 233, as amended, a large-load/data center bill intended to protect ratepayers from costs tied to massive new electricity users. The sponsor and Public Advocate said PJM’s warnings about a coming reliability backstop auction made it urgent to establish a Delaware framework now, requiring large energy users to sign utility agreements, cover their share of transmission, distribution, and capacity costs, and comply with curtailment and other protections. Supporters from environmental groups and some labor and business voices said the bill was needed to prevent cost shifts to households and small businesses, while opponents argued it was being rushed, could deter investment, and might unintentionally affect other industries; several asked for more time and clearer definitions. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee also took up House Bill 470, which would authorize Delmarva Power, with PSC approval, to build and operate utility-owned battery storage and spread costs across the customer base. The sponsor and Delmarva said the bill would improve reliability quickly and help avoid outages, while the chair expressed concern that the state had not yet fully studied whether utility-owned or competitively procured storage is the best model, noting a recent SEU storage study and broader policy questions. Supporters said utility storage could be deployed faster and help with peak shaving, while others urged a competitive process; the transcript cuts off before any final action on HB 470.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, and this is a completely different process in which this is a public process.
• Requiring pharmacies to default to FDA-approved labeling creates a false equivalency between approved
• They're not FDA-approved.
• process.
• process.

Committee: Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:

• There is a process by which we adopt standards, the review process, a whole team.
• That process typically will begin.
• There's kind of a parallel process where we're going through the State Board of Education process, where
• final approval, as all administrative rules do. ...process where we're going through the State Board
• I think the U.S. government was approved last year. That were approved by the legislature.

Committee: House Education