Transcript Highlights:

• That is an ongoing cost, so to your concern, but maybe it's an ongoing cost that is important enough
• At best, charter school facility costs are reimbursed at 75% of facility costs, which many cap below
• In 2022, the other cost allocation accounted for 16% of total program allocation, and in 2023–24, that
• There's not a carve-out this year for other costs. So there hasn't been other costs...
• There's not a carve-out this year for other costs.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee began with public comment and then heard an informational update on the administration’s Career Education Master Plan and the California Education Interagency Council. State agencies described efforts to better align workforce, higher education, and TK-12 systems through data sharing, dual enrollment, e-transcripts, career passports, and regional partnerships. Members asked about the council’s timeline, strategic plan, reporting requirements, and whether it would have authority to act; administration staff said the council is being stood up, its first meeting is due by the end of June, and a strategic plan is due by the end of November. Members also raised broader questions about the relationship of this work to the Master Plan for Higher Education and common course numbering. The committee then took up the Governor’s proposed $100 million one-time expansion of dual enrollment grants. Finance said the proposal would extend grants for middle college, early college, and CCAP programs, add eligibility for regional occupational centers, provide extra support for justice-involved youth, prioritize high-need LEAs, and allow funds for teacher professional development. The proposal would also reduce the minimum instructional day for certain dual enrollment students from 240 to 180 minutes to better align schedules and remove barriers. The LAO recommended rejecting the funding, arguing that dual enrollment is already growing and that the proposal does not address major fiscal barriers. The Chancellor’s Office and CDE supported the investment, emphasizing access, equity, and technical assistance, especially for rural and small districts. Members questioned instructional-minute changes, reporting on outcomes, adult learner access, and whether the funds would support ongoing or one-time costs. Next, the committee considered trailer bill language to align the definition of long-term English learners across data systems. Finance and CDE said the change would simplify identification by using a seven-year definition for LTELs and a six-year definition for students at risk of becoming LTELs, matching the dashboard and research on the typical time needed to reach English proficiency. Some members expressed concern that the proposal could delay intervention for students who have been English learners for four or five years and questioned why the issue was being handled through budget trailer bill language rather than policy legislation. After discussion, the committee voted on a motion to reject the proposal and refer it to the policy committee; the motion received two aye votes and the item was held open. Finally, the committee heard a proposal to extend the Supporting Inclusive Practices Project by one year, from June 30, 2026 to June 30, 2027. Finance said the extension would continue the existing project, while CDE raised concerns about the project’s contract structure, fiscal management, and scalability. A Marysville Joint Unified School District representative testified that SIP had helped the district bring preschool services back into district schools, expand inclusive practices, and reduce reliance on more restrictive placements. Members questioned why funds had not been fully encumbered and whether the project was best positioned to support statewide preschool inclusion goals, with CDE suggesting that existing infrastructure may already be better suited for that work.

Transcript Highlights:

• In year one, we allocated all of the resources, including a forward allocation of $43 million, to fund
• The remaining 2024 recurring allocation was awarded this winter.
• We also measure our project delivery in terms of time and cost.
• I believe that we had allocated about $23 million.
• And so that $7.2 million was allocated by the Legislative Budget Commission.

Summary: The committee met to review agency program funding as it prepared to build the budget, hearing brief presentations from six agencies and then taking member questions. Florida Division of Emergency Management highlighted its role in response, preparedness, recovery, and mitigation, describing a largely federal pass-through budget, major technology investments, and large disaster and preparedness grant activity. The Department of Commerce, Department of State, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, Department of Transportation, Department of Military Affairs, Florida State Guard, and Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles also summarized their budgets, staffing, and major programs, including workforce and economic development, elections and arts funding, housing assistance, transportation work programs, military readiness, state guard expansion, and highway safety and motorist services. Members focused questions on several issues: arts and library grant funding and whether award criteria had changed; Commerce’s rural infrastructure and job growth grants and why funds were not being disbursed faster; Florida Housing’s use of SAIL, Live Local, Hometown Heroes, and SHIP funds and how smaller agencies learn about and access funding; and DOT’s work program gap between agency and governor proposals. The most extensive questioning was directed to Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles about long DMV lines, vacancies, overtime, staffing shortages, and the ability to shift funds between divisions. The department said staffing and pay constraints, especially in South Florida, were driving service delays and vacancy rates, and that overtime was being used because troopers were leaving for better-paying jobs. The Florida State Guard was also questioned about its spending and procurement pace, including aircraft purchases and facilities. Its director said long procurement timelines explained the low initial spending and that obligations had risen sharply as contracts matured. Members also asked about the department’s public opposition to Amendment 3 and whether agency resources were used in that effort; the director said no contracts or purchases were made to influence the vote and said the colonel’s comments were made off the clock. The meeting ended with the chair asking agencies to respond promptly to unanswered questions, and the committee adjourned without any recorded votes or formal actions beyond receiving the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, true cost of health care.
• <00:36:35.920> By the cost of nursing home care. By the cost of nursing home care.
• meeting we did call it slot allocation. meeting we did call it slot allocation.
• Full cost in year two, new people cost year two.
• Full cost in year two, new people cost year two.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight Advisory Board’s fourth meeting focused primarily on a presentation from University of Kentucky and University of Louisville health leaders about the state university directed payment program. Mark Birdwhistle and Ken Marshall described the program as a long-running, value-based Medicaid arrangement that began in 2019, uses university-provided matching funds rather than provider taxes, and ties a portion of payments to quality outcomes. They said the program has improved measures such as tobacco cessation, diabetes control, depression screening, and cancer screening, while supporting access to specialty care, medical education, and workforce training. They also emphasized that Kentucky’s model is nationally notable and has helped improve health rankings and generate cost savings. A major topic was the federal reconciliation bill signed July 4, which the presenters said will reduce directed payments by 10% annually for 10 years beginning in 2028. UL Health estimated a first-year loss of about $75 million and a cumulative loss of about $600 million over the decade; UK estimated about $100 million in the first year, for a combined first-year impact of roughly $175 million. Both speakers warned the cuts could affect access to care, training capacity, and the sustainability of Kentucky’s value-based model, though they expressed hope that congressional action could alter or delay the changes. They also noted that 340B drug pricing changes could further strain already thin operating margins, but did not provide exact figures during the meeting. Committee members responded positively to the program’s reported outcomes and the institutions’ role in Kentucky health care. Senator Berg praised the quality of care and shared a personal example of being advised to stay at UofL for breast cancer treatment. Representative Moer highlighted Kentucky’s strong cancer-control score and asked for more explanation of the value-based payment structure; the presenters said the system is built around ongoing measurement, accountability, and collaboration with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the amended August 27 minutes by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• And a potential cost for a plan there.
• would cost.
• Within the total cost, the construction costs, which are being provided by Mortensen, NDIT costs, which
• And they would be under the soft cost then, state and soft costs? That $50 million? Mr.
• for any allowable cost.

Summary: The Budget Section Leadership Division met with a quorum and approved the March 18 minutes before hearing a series of informational updates. The Petroleum Council reported that North Dakota oil production is expected to remain relatively flat at just under 1.2 million barrels per day, with activity shifting northward in the Bakken as technology improves and three- and four-mile laterals boost well performance. The presentation also discussed oil and gas prices, gas taxation, flaring concerns, the importance of pipelines and other linear infrastructure, and enhanced oil recovery pilot projects supported by state and federal funding. Members asked questions about gas production taxes, natural gas liquids, and the outlook for drilling rigs and future production. The Office of State Tax Commissioner then reviewed the federal “big beautiful bill” and its estimated effect on North Dakota individual and business income tax collections. Staff explained that most of the individual income tax impact comes from the permanent increase in the standard deduction, while temporary provisions such as senior deductions, tip and overtime exclusions, and auto loan interest deductions have smaller or limited-term effects. They also noted that business tax changes, especially depreciation and expensing provisions, create a larger near-term cash impact, and that some FY25 collections likely reflected one-time oil field transactions that may have inflated the baseline used in earlier estimates. OMB provided updates on major capital projects and facility funding. For Capitol grounds improvements, officials described plans for 18th-floor renovations, wayfinding upgrades, public seating, lighting, tree management, and possible restroom and lobby reconfiguration, while also noting the governor’s residence security project and the discovery of human remains on the Capitol grounds. OMB and its consultants also reported on the state facility maintenance fund, including window replacement, boiler work, roof and foundation repairs, and a new facility conditions assessment covering more state buildings. Updates were also given on the new state hospital in Jamestown, the Minot state office building, and the use of federal state fiscal recovery funds, including possible future reallocations to the Department of Corrections. Finally, Legislative Council staff summarized the interim compliance report on legislative intent and trust fund activity, highlighting the status of lines of credit, Bank of North Dakota profit transfers, the statewide litigation pool, the new Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship, corrections planning, HHS program updates, and a likely future general fund request for the unemployment insurance modernization project. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes; the meeting was primarily informational, with members asking clarifying questions throughout.

Transcript Highlights:

• But in terms of each vendor had its own licensing costs, but then Mutualink had an additional seat cost
• These costs include the licensing costs, software costs, and other vendor costs discussed previously,
• These costs include the licensing costs, software costs, and other vendor costs discussed previously,
• Given that the fund does not provide ongoing allocations for system costs, this means any agency with
• First, each agency should develop a detailed cost estimate for ongoing system costs for fiscal years

Keywords: 1182, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• So what is driving that cost higher? Well, we're seeing cement cost increasing in cost.
• That cost is now $90,000 to $100,000. So costs are changing.
• Um and so it costs are 100,000. Um and so it costs are changing.
• And so that's going to cost more and drive up costs.
• h how do you allocate that? h how do you allocate that?

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee first approved the March 5 minutes, then heard a presentation from Balig Engineering on cost drivers for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in small Minnesota communities. The testifier said most Minnesota communities are small, and that limited local staff, complex funding requirements, and the need to combine multiple funding sources make projects expensive and labor-intensive. He cited examples of aging infrastructure, including a Tracy street collapse and failing water mains, and said federal funding can help but often requires extensive reports that can cost tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of staff hours. He also pointed to inflation, supply-chain disruptions, colder climate requirements, higher material and labor costs, limited competition among contractors and suppliers, and newer treatment requirements such as PFAS removal and cybersecurity controls as major cost drivers. Members asked whether reduced bonding or less frequent state funding would lower prices, whether annual bonding bills provide market certainty, how regionalization could be encouraged, and whether tightening specifications adds costs. The testifier said stopping work would likely drive contractors out of the market and reduce competition, which could raise prices later, and that consistent funding helps keep contractors in Minnesota. He said regional water systems such as Red Rock Rural Water and Lincoln Pipestone Rural Water are already helping lower costs and that legislators could encourage more regionalization through incentives. He also said some specifications and federal requirements, especially around treatment plant controls and cybersecurity, increase costs, though some standards like deeper water-main burial are necessary. The committee then moved on to the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs, where John Kelly began presenting the governor’s 2026 capital budget recommendations and described the department’s mission, statewide network of veterans homes and cemeteries, and service to nearly 300,000 veterans and dependents.

Transcript Highlights:

• costs and reduce uncertainty through better project management, cost estimating, and stronger oversight
• costs.
• These costs are astounding. I'm concerned though that we allocate money.
• There's the cost of operations, the cost of maintenance.
• costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's not the State Land Office that bears the costs.
• And there's no cost to damages. There's no estimation.
• Million is aimed towards all of our operating costs.
• The rest of the cost is allocated and encumbered for current contracts for debris removal, for right-of-way
• We know it's costing the taxpayers to clean up this.

Transcript Highlights:

• allocation in public construction contracts and the increasing cost of project inputs.
• Through a cost allocation model, I'm going to focus on explaining...
• Through a cost allocation model, I'm going to focus on explaining how these transfers really enable us
• We utilize a cost allocation model to calculate costs of actual services provided to the utility by the
• Within that is a statement about actually doing this cost allocation model.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As driving healthcare costs generally, pharmacy costs are increasing.
• Cost right now.
• There are really two major cost drivers.
• we can continuously allocate people.
• I'd be really interested to know, though you mentioned the costs outweighing, do the costs of the GLP

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The project never actually showed the total cost.
• The project never actually showed the total cost.
• , we can then move it to another allocation.
• Obviously, through our annual plan, we allocate those dollars; they're fully allocated in each annual
• And now today, when we're building them, they went from a $788 million cost to a $3 billion cost, just

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held an informational hearing on the state capital outlay process, with Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration’s Office of Facilities Planning and Control (FPNC) presenting a detailed review of House Bill 2 and proposed improvements. They said FPNC administers about 54% of the bill, while other agencies administer the rest, and emphasized that the capital outlay program has improved significantly over the last few years, with project expenditures more than doubling due to better cash-flow management, staffing changes, and more efficient project administration. They also explained how the bill is structured by priorities, how the priority-one cash line of credit is capped and adjusted for construction inflation, and how the bill has grown into a much larger, longer-range plan than a true five-year program, especially on the non-state side. A major theme was that the bill contains too many dormant, legacy, and low-priority projects, which creates false expectations and ties up funding. Committee members pressed the presenters on culture change, third-party project management, staffing shortages, and the use of technology and statutory interpretation to speed projects without sacrificing compliance. Husser and Baker said they had reduced internal bureaucracy, used staff augmentation because of hiring difficulties, delegated smaller projects to agencies when appropriate, and improved cash-flow analysis so projects can move forward with less money up front. They also discussed overappropriations, dormant projects, and the need to reappropriate unused funds to projects that can actually spend them. The presenters offered several recommendations and considerations: limit the number and size of new projects, reduce scope creep, require more regular endorsement of long-running projects, consider caps on priority-five funding, impose time limits and reporting requirements on non-state grant projects, and possibly require non-state entities to escrow or otherwise demonstrate their match earlier. They also suggested bundling related projects together, expanding that approach beyond the current pilot, and improving transparency by showing full project funding history and the first year each project appeared in the bill. No votes were taken, and the meeting remained informational, with members generally supportive of the efficiency reforms while also raising concerns about false hope, dormant projects, and the need for clearer expectations and accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• , their equity costs.
• So once you make, to the extent that this allocation of cost, utilities and shareholders makes utilities
• , their equity costs.
• So once you make, to the extent that this allocation of cost, utilities and shareholders makes utilities
• the cost.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and broader options for reforming California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the scale of wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh trade-offs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described long delays in compensation, housing insecurity, and what they viewed as a system that protects utility shareholders more than victims. They urged greater transparency, clearer accountability for utility spending and safety performance, faster and fuller compensation for survivors, and reforms such as independent audits and better alignment of utility incentives with wildfire prevention and restitution. The second panel began with Tom Welsh of the California Earthquake Authority, who explained that the SB 254 report was intended as a broad inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations. He described the report’s process, including stakeholder submissions, workstreams, and a convergence process, and outlined the current wildfire fund structure: utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims after a covered wildfire, and the CPUC later determines prudency and possible reimbursement back to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon summarized compensation data, saying utilities paid about $38 billion between 2017 and 2024, with major shares going to injured parties, insurers, and public entities, while litigation costs and survivors’ own losses remain substantial. He noted that legal fees and delays reduce the amount survivors ultimately receive. Utility and public-interest witnesses offered differing views on the report’s pathways. PG&E’s Tyson Smith said the report shows inaction is the worst outcome and argued for community wildfire risk reduction, equitable allocation of catastrophe costs, and state-led resilience tools. LADWP’s Fernando Valero emphasized the vulnerability of municipal utilities and cities, and supported inverse condemnation reform, a state-sponsored liability insurance framework, damages and subrogation limits, and stronger insurance access. Consumer Attorneys of California’s John Fisk argued that IOU-caused fires are not natural disasters but the result of negligence and sometimes criminal conduct, and opposed reducing utility liability while supporting stronger oversight and audits. The Public Advocates Office’s Nathaniel Skinner focused on affordability, saying ratepayers already bear large and growing wildfire costs and warning against shifting more costs onto bills without measurable risk reduction and tighter accountability. Committee members then began questioning witnesses about what counts as measurable mitigation, how to define full and fair compensation, and how any fast-pay process should work.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because whenever you do something, you have certain fixed costs, then you have variable costs.
• The fixed costs are no matter how much grain moves, you're going to have this cost.
• The fixed costs are no matter how much grain moves, you're going to have this cost.
• And then it will give the lowest cost. So it gives the lowest cost transportation.
• the cost.

Summary: The committee first heard an update on the Joint Transportation Committee study of transportation impacts if the Lower Snake River dams were removed. WSDOT and Jacobs described the study’s phases, including current work on geology, infrastructure risk, and a total logistics cost model. They explained that the study is examining how freight now moved by barge—especially wheat, fertilizer, and wood—could shift to rail and roads, and they outlined several scenarios ranging from no-dam future conditions to new unit-train terminals, short-line rail options, and a combined “many solutions” scenario. Members asked about irrigation, impacts in Idaho and Oregon, port capacity, emissions, competition, EV trucks, and whether the model could estimate transportation effects if grain volumes decline. The presenters said the study assumes current production levels continue, does not model irrigation changes or broader farm-economics impacts, but does account for transloading costs and can estimate transportation impacts under different volume assumptions. WSU’s independent review team said the model has improved substantially but still needed refinement, especially in routing, road data, and spatial detail, and that stakeholder engagement had been strong though delayed by model development. No votes were taken. The committee then received a presentation on the alternative sidewalk funding study. Staff and consultants said the study is exploring ways local governments could sustainably fund sidewalk maintenance, repair, and new construction, using a statewide survey, interviews, national research, and case studies in eight jurisdictions. They noted sidewalks are important for pedestrian safety and connectivity, but there is no dedicated funding source in Washington, and existing grants and local revenue tools are highly competitive or limited. The consultants highlighted sidewalk fees or utility-style charges as the most promising option to study, while a parcel tax was largely set aside because of state property-tax uniformity concerns. Members asked whether the study would duplicate existing funding or add to current taxes, and how a sidewalk fee would be collected; the consultants said the goal is to expand local options, not mandate adoption, and that fees would likely be billed through utilities rather than property taxes. A preliminary draft report is due December 15, with a final report due in mid-June. Next, staff gave a brief update on the ocean-going vessels study, which is examining shore power and emissions rules for vessels at berth. The presenter explained that federal Clean Air Act rules and California waiver authority create legal limits on how far Washington can go if it wants to adopt similar standards, and that deviations from California’s approach can increase litigation risk. The report will summarize stakeholder outreach and will be presented in draft form at the next JTC meeting. Finally, county engineers from Chelan and Douglas counties began a presentation on county transportation challenges, with the association’s director emphasizing collaboration with state agencies and local partners on issues such as fish passage barriers and infrastructure needs. The county presentation was only beginning when the transcript ended, and no committee action or votes were recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Should we still allocate this money for you?'
• Should we still allocate still doing it?
• it had to be allocated by December 31st. it had to be allocated by December 31st.
• utilities, which can recover their costs utilities, which can recover their costs automatically<
• :04.960> Bitcoin<01:21:05.679> because allocation into into Bitcoin because allocation

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• trying to make the point that the cost trying to make the point that the cost goes<00:10:52.880>
• But I'm going to talk about the cost allocation sample.
• About the cost allocation sample, so the way this funding— which document are you looking at?
• The one that says cost allocation? Document? Oh, oh, wait. Yeah, that one.
• <01:25:46.360> of the cost of the eligible cost of the cost of the eligible cost of construction

Keywords: 928, house, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• As such, the transition to a federal program with minimal state costs would be the most cost-effective
• We looked at cost reductions.
• So you can imagine it's very hard to reduce costs for a program like that.
• It will be indirectly allocated through what we call a countywide pool.
• GusNIP funding allows for up to four-year allocations.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard several May Revision proposals, primarily from the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Government Operations Agency, the Department of Technology, and the Franchise Tax Board. CDFA presented funding for the animal care program under Proposition 12, a transition away from the state hemp program to USDA oversight by January 1, 2028, ongoing support for agricultural statistics reporting after USDA reorganization, and trailer bill changes to the department’s indirect cost cap. The LAO generally supported the animal care, hemp transition, and statistics proposals, while also urging future review of the Prop 12 funding once litigation is resolved. The indirect-cost-cap language was described as technical and not increasing charges to programs, and it was held open with no objections from the LAO or Finance. The committee also discussed the new federal Workforce Pell program and related Cradle to Career funding and trailer bill language. Finance said the state is still reviewing federal rules and is focusing on basic implementation steps, with the trailer bill assigning eligibility determinations to the California Student Aid Commission, requiring data sharing through Cradle to Career, and prioritizing public institutions first. The LAO urged caution because the federal rules were just finalized and said the Legislature should better define the process and costs before appropriating the $1.3 million requested for Cradle to Career. Members raised policy concerns about limiting the program to certain institutions and about aligning the proposal with pending legislation and broader workforce policy. The Department of Technology presented a $1 million request for Poppy, the state’s digital assistant, to expand a secure GenAI platform for state employees. Members asked detailed questions about data security, model training, bias controls, and whether the system could eventually support local governments; CDT said the system uses state-controlled cloud infrastructure, does not use user data for training, and quarantines new models for review. CDT also sought provisional authority for the Middle Mile Broadband Initiative to cover possible operating shortfalls while the network is still being built; the LAO remained concerned about broad spending authority, and several members questioned the revenue assumptions and oversight. FTB then proposed retaining a smaller set of CalFile resources after the federal Direct File program was discontinued, with the LAO saying the reduced staffing level was broadly reasonable but still worth legislative scrutiny. The committee also began hearing the administration’s revenue proposals, including a permanent limitation on business tax credits and a tax on electronically delivered prewritten software, with the LAO generally supporting the goal of raising ongoing revenue but recommending changes to the software proposal’s exemptions and business-use treatment.

Transcript Highlights:

• student, program cost factors or weights are added to the FTE.
• Categoricals are individual allocations in the FEFP.
• For example, safe schools and mental health assistance allocation.
• My operational costs don't change. You know, the HVAC, all of your operational costs don't change.
• So I'm assuming it costs a fair amount of money every time.

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met to review how Florida’s Education Finance Program (FEFP) works, receive an update from the Department of Education on the October 2024 FTE survey and third FEFP calculation, and hear from three county superintendents about forecasting enrollment and reconciling scholarship students. The chair explained that FEFP is funded by both state and local dollars, is recalculated multiple times during the year, and is now closely tied to school choice policy. Department staff said the third calculation was still being rerun but should be completed soon, and described the forecasting process as collaborative among districts, DOE, and the Education Estimating Conference. Superintendents from Polk, St. Lucie, and Hendry counties said enrollment shifts, especially students moving to Family Empowerment Scholarships, homeschooling, or private schools, make budgeting and staffing difficult. They said districts often must hold back funds to protect against midyear losses, which affects collective bargaining, staffing, transportation, and classroom organization. Several members raised concerns about duplicate counting, transparency, and whether students receiving scholarship funds can also remain in district classrooms. DOE said districts can access scholarship information through a secure portal and that scholarship funding organizations are paid quarterly, with a new process requiring certification and possible future payment adjustments to reduce duplication. The superintendents urged better real-time tracking of students through a statewide ID or student information system and suggested scholarship students should be funded separately from district FEFP calculations. Members also discussed whether more frequent or daily attendance-based calculations would improve accuracy, though some warned that daily attendance could create new problems for high-poverty districts. The committee also briefly discussed categoricals, including mental health and ESE funding, with DOE saying it evaluates programs through studies, reporting requirements, and legislative direction. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with a motion to rise and adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• about House Bill 3588, and of course I forget the Senate number on that but it is about timing allocation
• About House Bill 3588, and of course I forgot the Senate number on that, but it is about timing allocation
• Without money, we can't run those campaigns, and without those timing allocations to guarantee...
• I urge you to pass this timing allocation bill, which would be a win-win for all of us.
• The cost of paint, lifts, and materials is the same across the state.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Tourism, Arts, and Cultural Development held a hearing on October 21, opening with a moment of silence for former committee chair Senator Edward Kennedy. Chairs Senator Paul Mark and Representative Sean Garballey then heard testimony on several bills related to tourism funding, arts infrastructure, public art, Native heritage, and a choreographer laureate. A major focus was legislation to require earlier distribution of regional tourism council grants from the Tourism Trust Fund, with testimony from regional tourism leaders from North of Boston, Metro West, Cape Cod, and Senator Joan Lovely. Witnesses said delayed grant allocations make it difficult to plan fall, winter, and shoulder-season marketing, and they argued that an October 1 or September 1 deadline would help preserve tourism’s economic impact without increasing appropriations. They cited tourism’s role in jobs, tax revenue, and regional economic development, especially for smaller and less prominent tourism regions. The committee also heard strong support for the Creative Space Act and the PLACE Act, which would help municipalities preserve affordable creative workspace and create a public art funding mechanism tied to state construction projects. Testimony from MassCreative, MAPC, arts organizations, muralists, and local arts leaders emphasized loss of workspace, displacement of artists, and the economic and community benefits of public art. Additional testimony supported bills to protect Native American heritage by preventing the sale of funerary and sacred objects in public or nonprofit collections, and a bill to establish a first-in-the-nation choreographer laureate of the Commonwealth. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the committee adjourned after public testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you all have a handle on what it costs to get there?
• The project never actually showed the total cost; the bill never actually showed the total cost of the
• , we can then move it to another allocation.
• They're fully allocated in each annual plan.
• And now today, when we’re building them, they went from a $788 million cost to a $3 billion cost, just

Summary: The committee met for an informational hearing focused largely on the state capital outlay process and House Bill 2. Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration/Facility Planning and Control described how the office prepares and administers the capital outlay bill, said the bill has grown substantially over five years, and argued that recent changes in culture, staffing, project management, cash-flow analysis, and use of third-party support have more than doubled project expenditures and improved delivery. Members asked about the use and cost of third-party project managers, delegation of smaller projects to agencies, hiring difficulties, and whether the changes represented better interpretation of existing law versus statutory changes. Husser said some statutes were amended, some internal customs were removed, and the office would provide a list of those changes. He also explained that the office is trying to move away from overly rigid practices and toward faster project completion while still following public-bid and oversight rules. A major portion of the discussion centered on the size and structure of the capital outlay bill, especially the gap between Priority 1 cash capacity and the much larger Priority 5 backlog. Husser said the current annual Priority 1 limit is tied to construction inflation and is about $574 million, with additional surplus funds also available, but that the bill contains far more Priority 5 funding than can realistically move in a five-year plan. He and members discussed dormant projects, scope creep, legacy projects that have sat in the bill for years, and the problem of false expectations for non-state entities. Proposed solutions included limiting Priority 5 to five times Priority 1, requiring annual re-endorsement by members, setting district or project caps for non-state projects, requiring time limits and reporting for grant-like non-state projects, placing matches in escrow, requiring design readiness before submission, and consolidating the many existing reporting requirements into one clearer report. Members also discussed bundling multiple projects under one agency project, which the House had begun piloting for LSU, UL Lafayette, Southern, and DOTD, and which Husser said could improve flexibility, reduce overappropriation, and better reflect actual spending. Baker then explained cash-flow management and the commitment process, saying FPC now analyzes projects annually to estimate what can actually be spent in the next fiscal year and uses commitments to allow projects to proceed when future-year funding is expected. He said overappropriations can result from poor cash-flow estimates, delays, dormant projects, or projects coming in under budget, and that the office is already reworking cash-flow assumptions and reappropriating savings where possible. Members also raised concerns about change orders and low bids; staff said project managers review change orders closely, require concurrence on non-state projects, and sometimes reduce scope to keep projects within budget. After FPC’s presentation, the committee heard the beginning of Louisiana Economic Development’s capital outlay discussion, where LED explained that its projects generally fall into three categories, including the Economic Development Awards Program and Site Readiness Program, both used to support targeted economic development and job creation.

Transcript Highlights:

• SD1, encouraging Hawaii insurers and the Hawaii Property Insurance Association to reduce insurance costs
• documents that small modular plant costs documents that small modular reactors<00:17:49.200> are<
• are are one of the biggest factors costs are are one of the biggest factors and,<00:20:59.840> um
• of energy is is kind of that point cost of energy is is kind of that point in<00:21:12.080> time,
• Right now, uh, levelized<00:21:16.240> cost<00:21:16.400> of<00:21:16.640> energy

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection met on April 16, 2025, and heard three resolutions. STR 57 SD1 urged Congress to create a national reinsurance program to address insurance impacts from catastrophic natural disasters; there was no public testimony, and the committee later recommended passage without amendment. STR 198 SD1 encouraged Hawaii insurers and the Hawaii Property Insurance Association to pursue subrogation claims against polluters to reduce insurance costs for residents; again, there was no public testimony, and the committee recommended passage without amendment. The committee spent most of its hearing on STR 136 SD1/HD1, which would create a Hawaii State Energy Office nuclear energy working group to study advanced nuclear power technologies. The Public Utilities Commission and State Energy Office provided written testimony and answered questions. Testimony from 350 Hawaii, Energy Justice Network, and an individual witness opposed the measure, arguing nuclear power and small modular reactors are too expensive, unproven, slow to deploy, create unresolved safety and waste issues, and do not align with Hawaii’s renewable energy goals. Opponents also criticized the measure’s amendment process, saying it replaced the original contents without adequate public notice. During decision-making, the committee adopted the recommendation to pass STR 57 SD1 unamended and STR 198 SD1 unamended. For STR 136 SD1/HD1, the committee adopted a recommendation to pass the measure with amendments, including changing it to a one-year working group with an interim report in 2026 and a final report before the 2027 Legislature. The motion passed with one recorded no vote and some excused members, and the meeting adjourned afterward.