Transcript Highlights:

• This is a restricted reserve fund transfer request.
• I think we need to at least have that discussion.
• The second page of the report breaks out the set-aside accounts within the restricted reserve fund.
• The set-aside accounts within the restricted reserve fund: on line 06 is the motor vehicle set-aside.
• I understand we have set-asides.

Summary: The committee considered a series of appropriation, transfer, and review items, approving most requests in Sections B through J. These included temporary appropriations for state technology upgrades, personnel management, court reporters and interpreters, crime victim claims, juvenile sex offender assessments, radiation lab testing, higher education workforce grants, an ARPA grant for the UAFS LPN program, an IIJA grant for geological/critical minerals work, a restricted reserve transfer for 102 State Police vehicles, a transfer to the Arkansas Heroes Program, several cash fund requests for the Real Estate Commission HVAC and AV needs, and overtime appropriations for Emergency Management and Military. One budget classification transfer request from the Commissioner of State Lands for $250,000 to cover operating expenses tied to a new building was discussed at length but failed on the vote after questions about the lease and operating costs. A major portion of the meeting focused on a $25.7 million pay plan appropriation request for 15 agencies. Members questioned why the Department of Human Services had not requested additional pay-plan dollars for human development centers, where DHS acknowledged staffing shortages, high turnover, and heavy overtime but said the issue was not lack of pay-plan funding. DHS was asked to provide a written plan to address staffing problems. The Department of Corrections testified that the pay plan had improved retention and hiring, and committee members asked for follow-up data on vacancies and staffing outcomes. Members also clarified that the pay-plan request was appropriation only, not new funding, and approved it. The committee then reviewed fund reports, including the restricted reserve, Budget Stabilization Trust Fund, Tobacco Settlement, State Central Services, Education Adequacy, Medicaid Trust Fund, IIJA, and Revenue Services transfer reports. DHS and DFA were questioned closely about the Medicaid Trust Fund, with members noting a $90 million February draw and asking about projected year-end balances; DFA and DHS said February was a high-expense, low-revenue month and projected the fund would remain solvent through the fiscal year, ending between $150 million and $200 million, while a second $100 million set-aside is planned for FY27. The committee also discussed a state hospital damage report, where DHS explained that insurance proceeds would not fully cover the repair costs because of depreciation and the age of the buildings; members expressed concern that the state would recover far less than originally expected, and DHS said any additional insurance recovery would be limited and returned to restricted reserve.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a restricted reserve fund transfer request.
• I think we need to at least have that discussion.
• The second page of the report breaks out the set-aside accounts within the restricted reserve fund.
• On line 06 is the motor vehicle set-aside.
• I understand we have set-asides.

Summary: The committee considered a series of appropriation, fund transfer, and reserve requests across multiple agencies. Section B temporary appropriations included funding for state technology upgrades, personnel management staffing and IT skills assessment, court reporters and interpreters, crime victim claims, juvenile sex offender assessments, radiation lab testing, and higher education workforce grants and credentialing pathways. Additional items covered an ARPA grant for the University of Arkansas Fort Smith LPN program, an IIJA grant for the Oil and Gas Commission’s critical minerals work, a restricted reserve transfer for State Police vehicle purchases, a transfer to the Arkansas Heroes Program, and cash fund requests for the Real Estate Commission’s AV system and HVAC work. Most of these items were approved by voice vote. One budget classification transfer request from the Commissioner of State Lands drew extended questioning and was ultimately not approved. Members questioned the $250,000 transfer to operating expenses tied to the purchase of a West Little Rock office building, the ongoing lease costs at the prior location, and whether the agency had adequately planned for building-related expenses. After discussion, the motion failed, and members told the agency to tighten spending and return if needed. The committee then took up 15 pay plan appropriation requests totaling $25.7 million and approved them after discussion with DFA, DHS, Corrections, and the State Board of Election Commissioners. Members focused heavily on DHS staffing shortages at human development centers, where officials said vacancies and turnover were driven by overtime and burnout rather than pay alone; one member asked DHS to submit a written plan to address the issue. Corrections reported the pay plan had improved hiring and retention. The committee also approved overtime appropriations for Emergency Management and Military. Reports on reserve funds, the Budget Stabilization Trust Fund, tobacco settlement, State Central Services, Education Adequacy, Medicaid Trust, IIJA, and revenue transfer activity were received. The Medicaid Trust Fund report prompted significant concern about February’s $90 million draw; DHS said the month was unusually high because of cash-flow timing and that the fund should end the year with a balance between $150 million and $200 million, while lawmakers noted a second $100 million set-aside is planned for FY27. The final discussion centered on DHS’s state hospital damage claim and reconstruction funding, where members expressed disappointment that insurance reimbursement would likely return only about $1.8 million now and possibly about $97,000 more later, far less than the roughly $5 million initially expected. DHS explained the policy was based on actual cash value and depreciation for old buildings, and said the work would proceed on Unit 3 for secured restoration because it was the most cost-effective option.

Transcript Highlights:

• least restrictive environment that this least restrictive environment that we<00:20:45.760> have<
• <00:55:48.319> restrictive<00:55:49.280> environment least restrictive environment least
• <00:56:02.720> restrictive this issue of the least restrictive this issue of the least restrictive
• <00:58:47.040> restrictive what is the least restrictive what is the least restrictive environment
• least restrictive to most restrictive? least restrictive to most restrictive?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission met to approve the May 18, 2026 minutes and then focused on how SB 57’s special education cost study should inform HB 1099, which creates a separate study committee on residential placements and related education costs. Members discussed sending the commission’s minutes and findings to that new committee, noting the short timeline for its work and the need to be specific about unresolved issues so the new group does not duplicate the same questions. A major topic was the cost and responsibility for students placed at Spalding and similar residential programs, especially transportation and whether costs are paid through the Department of Education’s episode-of-treatment (EOT) fund, local districts, DHS, or Medicaid. Staff explained that for students with disabilities, EOT funds cover special education and transportation costs tied to the placement, while students without disabilities are handled through DHS care-management and best-interest meetings. Members raised concerns about whether some students at Spalding are receiving no schooling, whether transportation costs are substantial, and whether Medicaid reimbursement could offset some expenses. The commission also discussed confusion over district responsibility when students placed in residential programs attend school in another district, using Winnisquam as an example. Several members said the receiving district was not notified that DHHS-approved programs could bring in additional students and costs, and they suggested DHHS or its care-management entity should notify both the district of residence and the receiving district when a program is approved. The group agreed this notification issue, along with transportation funding, privacy concerns in Medicaid-to-schools billing, and the distinction between special education placements, EOT placements, and other voluntary residential placements, should be passed to the HB 1099 study committee for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• But at least this a balancing act.
• to<00:39:04.320> at<00:39:04.400> least provides the flexibility to at least provides
• Who presents that set in this bill? Who presents that set evidence?
• It sets clear statewide guidance for what is an undue restriction on private property rights.
• <01:39:30.639> on at section E line 22, restriction on at section E line 22, restriction on

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This set for the committee is 4597, 4597. This set is purely technical in nature.
• This concludes the amendment set.
• So, I know it's a rather large set.
• That would be different than amendment set 4080, which is the official amendment set provided by staff
• dive in the current amendment set, but I think I'm still on the amendment set.

Summary: The committee first heard and favorably reported SB 255, which expands eligibility for psychosocial rehabilitation services by adding health sciences and therapeutic recreation degrees to the list of acceptable educational backgrounds. Supporters said the change would help address workforce shortages and improve access in rural areas. SB 314 was then reported favorably; it cleans up prior law so a limited scope certified social worker license can still be used for community psychiatric support and treatment services even if the application is filed after the CSW license has expired, rather than being barred by a timing restriction. The committee next took up several bills by Chairman McMath. SB 26, which repeals facility need review requirements for opioid treatment programs, was reported favorably after members and witnesses said Louisiana has too few OTPs and that removing the review would improve access, especially in rural areas. SB 29, requiring review and reporting of a child’s immunization records in certain unexpected death autopsies, was reported favorably despite questions about whether the bill should refer more broadly to medical records; supporters said the data could help evaluate vaccine-related concerns, while opponents raised concerns about singling out immunizations. SB 30, dealing with telehealth for obesity/weight management, was amended and reported favorably; the committee adopted technical amendments and a conceptual amendment replacing “metabolic condition” with “weight management services,” while witnesses debated patient safety, board authority, and whether the bill should limit agencies’ ability to restrict telehealth in the future. The committee also reported favorably SB 219, which creates an Office of Health and Nutrition within LDH. Supporters from the department, the Alzheimer’s Association, and Pennington Biomedical said the office would strengthen coordination on nutrition, physical activity, and brain health, and cited high Alzheimer’s costs and prevalence in Louisiana. SB 222, which streamlines Medicaid behavioral health administrative requirements and expands telehealth for psychosocial rehabilitation, was reported favorably with amendments after supporters described workforce and rural access barriers. SB 195, the “Danny’s Dose EMS Treatment Act,” was reported favorably; it would allow EMS personnel to administer a patient’s own prescribed time-critical medication in emergencies, and testimony from a parent and physician described life-threatening delays under current practice. The committee also adopted SCR 2, updating hospital architectural standards to the most recent Facility Guidelines Institute edition, and SCR 22, requesting a more detailed legislative auditor report on opioid settlement expenditures; members said they wanted clearer outcome data and planned to refine the language before floor debate. Finally, HB 1093 on naturopathic medicine was introduced and heavily amended, with the bill shifted under LSBME oversight and a large set of changes discussed, but no final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we would prefer to see that moved out of restrictive housing law because this restrictive housing
• <00:29:12.240> housing restrict the use of restrictive housing restrict the use of restrictive
• meaningfully ensure less restrictive meaningfully ensure less restrictive housing,<00:29:45.760>
• <00:30:57.200> With reducing restrictive housing. With reducing restrictive housing.
• this meeting with at least two meetings. this meeting with at least two meetings.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The working group convened with all members present, approved the minutes from its October 16, 2025 meeting and its October 28, 2025 Halawa Correctional Facility site visit by unanimous consent, and received no public testimony on the agenda or minutes. The chair then reviewed the statutory timeline under Act 292/SB 104, noting the group continues until January 8, 2027, and discussed required reporting dates and the need to develop a work plan for the remaining meetings. The chair also said the October 16 DCR presentation would be treated as satisfying the group’s interim-report purpose, though the legal reporting obligations to the Legislature and oversight commission still needed to be sorted out. The main discussion focused on DCR’s proposed amendments to Act 292 and the department’s interim report. Director Johnson said the department’s October 16 presentation included recommended statutory amendments because the law, as written, could not be fully complied with; the proposals were described as section-by-section changes intended to address implementation problems. Members discussed several specific issues, including transfer language for higher levels of care, the 2010 MOA with the Department of Health, and replacing “physician” with “clinician” to reflect staffing realities. DCR explained that the change would allow licensed clinicians, including APRNs and doctors of osteopathy, to make decisions when physicians are not on duty, and that the MOA is being updated so transfers can occur from any DCR facility to the state hospital. An OHA staff member gave a detailed critique of the proposed amendments, saying they would weaken Act 292’s intent by reducing procedural protections, expanding exceptions, and relying on aspirational language such as “strive” and “if practicable.” OHA also raised concerns about the lack of baseline data on restrictive housing use and said the department’s report showed serious operational problems, including overcrowded and outdated facilities, limited space for private medical or mental health exams, and the use of suicide/safety cells for people who may not need mental health treatment. DCR responded that it had requested 35 new medical positions in the budget, supported by the governor, and said those positions are needed to meet basic care obligations for people in custody. The group did not take a vote on the proposed amendments. Instead, members agreed to continue the discussion, with the chair saying the reports, settlement tracker, 2010 MOA, and comparison guidelines would be distributed and used as the basis for future work. In the final discussion on work-plan priorities, members identified staffing shortages, physical plant limitations, and the need to examine humane alternatives and implementation challenges as key topics for upcoming meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• In which 10-year buyback restriction.
• restriction or shared appreciation. restriction or shared appreciation.
• <00:27:20.960> And at least tied to some AMI level. And at least tied to some AMI level.
• But for 10 years, they restrictions.
• is only coming up because we’re looking at not having a 10-year restriction and having a permanent restriction

Bills: SB2060, SB2063, SB2062, SB2069, SB2070

Keywords: rental housing revolving fund, HHFDC, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, mixed-income housing, mixed-income rental project, affordable housing, low-income housing, housing finance, housing development, preservation, rehabilitation, pre-development, construction financing, equity investment, credit enhancement, collateral, gap financing, area median income, AMI, perpetual affordability

Summary: The committee heard five housing measures, with the chair announcing that SB 2060, SB 2063, SB 2062, and SB 2069 were works in progress and that decision-making would be deferred to February 3. SB 2060 would allow HHFDC, with Finance approval, to transfer money within the rental housing revolving fund and its subaccounts without further legislative authorization, including a transfer to the mixed-income subaccount for FY 2026-2027. HHFDC and other supporters said the change would give the agency more flexibility to move projects forward, while Catholic Charities Hawaii and a testifier from Roars and Cares supported the bill but warned that shifting money away from lower-income housing could weaken efforts to serve households under 80% of area median income and people at risk of homelessness. HHFDC said the fund’s uncommitted balance was about $100 million and that demand exceeded available resources. SB 2063 would revise the mixed-income subaccount by changing project priorities, adding new criteria, allowing transfers within the subaccount without legislative approval, and directing conveyance tax revenues into the subaccount. HHFDC, OPSD, LURF, Hawaii Appleseed, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Stanford Carr Development, and Roars and Cares supported the measure, while Catholic Charities urged the committee to keep rental and for-sale housing policy separate and to use other mechanisms for homeownership. Catholic Charities said the rental housing revolving fund should remain focused on rentals, and that for-sale initiatives should be addressed separately. The chair indicated an intent to defer the bill for further edits. SB 2062 would make the dwelling unit revolving fund equity pilot a permanent HHFDC program, allowing the agency to buy equity in for-sale developments to lower initial purchase prices and require repayment through shared appreciation. HHFDC said the pilot had been successful, with 83 units committed and $7.6 million of the $10 million program cap already committed, and said permanence would let the agency pair the program with DERF loans earlier in project financing. The chair said SB 2069 would be used as the vehicle for amendments to the DERF equity program and related changes. SB 2069 would authorize HHFDC to use existing dwelling unit revolving fund balances for the equity pilot; it drew support from HHFDC and several housing organizations. SB 2070 would create a permanently affordable for-sale housing program by replacing the current 10-year buyback restriction with a resale price cap tied to an appreciation index, which HHFDC said would preserve affordability while allowing owners to build equity. In questioning, senators pressed HHFDC on whether the bill was necessary, whether it would remove first-time homebuyer and other ownership restrictions, and whether the new program was truly “permanently affordable” if not tied to AMI. HHFDC said the current statutory restrictions limit flexibility, that the proposal would expand access to local residents, and that the price cap would be based on about 4.5% annual appreciation. Supporters said the approach would help buyers move up the housing ladder, while some senators expressed concern that it could open the program to owners of multiple properties and that the committee should see sales-velocity data on existing restricted units before proceeding.

Transcript Highlights:

• with, and not a device-based restriction.
• on definitions around restrictions quite yet.
• E-bikes are at least twice as heavy as commercial bicycles.
• And we certainly don't want to be overly restrictive.
• We set a speed limit, and we also set device regulations.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation held a hybrid hearing on the governor’s Ride Safe Act, S. 3077, and related micromobility bills. Chairs and administration officials described the bill as a statewide, speed-based framework for e-bikes, scooters, mopeds, and similar devices, intended to replace outdated device categories with clearer rules for age limits, helmets, equipment, operating locations, registration, insurance for higher-speed devices, and restrictions on tampering. They also emphasized improved crash-data collection, a working group for future updates, and battery safety standards such as UL certification to reduce fire risk. Committee members asked about enforcement, shared-use paths, commuter rail accommodations, battery storage, and how the bill would apply to other vehicles like quads; the administration said some issues would need further study or follow-up. Testimony from advocates, municipal officials, and commission members was mixed but generally supportive of clearer statewide rules. Transportation and safety advocates backed the speed-based tier system but urged additional measures, including a default speed limit on shared-use paths, automated enforcement, and more funding for Complete Streets and Shared Streets programs. Bike shop and police representatives said current laws are confusing for riders and law enforcement and that better definitions and data reporting are needed. Several speakers stressed that enforcement and education will be critical, and that local patchwork rules are difficult to apply consistently. Medical testimony strongly supported tighter protections for young riders. Pediatric emergency and trauma doctors described a sharp rise in serious injuries and deaths involving e-bikes and scooters, including severe pediatric cases, and urged amendments adding a minimum age for faster devices and a universal helmet requirement. They argued that the force and weight of these devices make crashes more dangerous than conventional bicycles and pointed to past Massachusetts safety laws as evidence that age and equipment restrictions can reduce injuries. Some public testimony opposed the bill as written, especially from moped commuters who argued that gas-powered mopeds are being treated differently from comparable electric devices and should be included in the framework. They called for clearer rules on bike-lane access, insurance, parking, and statewide standards for mopeds as vulnerable road users. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee heard testimony and questions only.

Transcript Highlights:

• So maybe we'll set a little timer. So when you So maybe we'll set a little timer.
• Restricted funds at FSU make up about 20% of our overall funding.
• For UCF, pretty much, you look, for example, restricted there.
• all, at least said that at least once in our comments.
• Our sessions are set constitutionally. It will not change.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on higher education funding, focusing on how Florida’s university system should be financed and whether a new funding model is needed. University system financial officers and Chancellor Ray Rodriguez discussed major cost drivers, including wages and benefits, utilities, maintenance, financial aid, research, and the effects of geography, institutional mission, and student mix. UF highlighted the cost of research and graduate programs; UCF and FAU pointed to growth, location, and cost of living; FAMU emphasized recruiting top-tier talent while relying on other revenue sources; and UNF noted the challenges of growth and long-term planning. Members also discussed the role of internal controls and audits in addressing excessive spending and questioned whether out-of-state tuition should be adjusted to help offset costs. On revenue sources beyond state appropriations and tuition, the panel described auxiliaries, restricted funds, capital projects, and component units such as foundations and health systems. Several universities noted that some revenues are restricted to specific purposes and cannot be used for general operations. FAMU explained that a large share of its capital project funding reflected active campus construction, while UF said its component-unit revenue is largely tied to UF Health. The Chancellor emphasized that the system’s low tuition and strong state support are central to Florida’s national standing, but also noted that some auxiliary revenues are pledged to debt and must be managed carefully. When discussing the current funding process, witnesses praised Florida’s performance-based funding model for aligning incentives with student success, transparency, and accountability. They also raised concerns about non-recurring appropriations, rising employee benefit costs, unfunded mandates, deferred maintenance, and the difficulty of multi-year planning. Suggestions for improvement included more recurring funding, better coverage of mandated costs, greater flexibility in fee-setting, and possible weighting for mission, geography, and institutional type. The Chancellor said the Board of Governors is considering a “version 3.0” of performance-based funding that would benchmark institutions against peers and Carnegie classifications, but any changes would require legislative action. On out-of-state tuition, most universities said they would prefer local board flexibility, while the Chancellor cautioned that increasing out-of-state enrollment or fees could affect future state support and should be balanced carefully.

Transcript Highlights:

• restrictive law because what we're talking about is a restriction on workers, on employers.
• restrictive law because what we're talking about is a restriction on workers, on employers.
• restrictive law because what we're talking about is a restriction on workers, on employers.
• restrictive law because what we're talking about is a restriction on workers, on employers.
• restrictive law because what we're talking about is a restriction on workers, on employers.

Bills: HF3228, HF2441

Keywords: workers' compensation, insurance programs, employee protection, Minnesota statutes, safety regulations, prevailing wage, certified payroll, payroll reporting, construction contracts, public works, project registration, labor standards, contractor compliance, subcontractor reporting, state government, Department of Administration, Commissioner of Labor and Industry, Metropolitan Council, highway construction, public construction

Transcript Highlights:

• It allows me to restrict my appraisal district information.
• At least in Spanish. All right. Yes, sir.
• It's come up at least two times before. It's come up at least two times that I've known of.
• What restrictions or regulations do they put in place?
• When we look at residency restrictions, the bottom line.

Bills: HB240, HB2097, HB2731, HB3087, HB3234, HB3319, HB3394, HB3687, HB4105, HB4205, HB4350, HB4462, HB4642, HB4801, HB5403, HB240

Keywords: quorum, tax levy, county governance, local government, population regulations, quorum requirement, Texas counties, population threshold, deputy sheriff, civil service, law enforcement, appeals process, sheriff's department, HB 2731, roadside vendors, solicitors, county regulation, border counties, Mexico border, Transportation Code

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, PBMs have no say in the price that drug manufacturers set.
• Additionally, PBMs have no say in the price that drug manufacturers set.
• Additionally, PBMs have no say in the price that drug manufacturers set.
• the ongoing... ...on time and at the least cost possible.
• It is growing. ...through so-called restrictions, but data show otherwise.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a lengthy hearing on a large docket of pharmacy and drug-pricing bills, with most testimony focused on PBM reform, 340B drug discount program protections, specialty medication access, and medication adherence. Chair James Murphy and Senator Paul Feeney opened the hearing and took testimony from legislators, patient advocates, pharmacists, health center leaders, industry representatives, and policy groups. Several speakers described delays, denials, high out-of-pocket costs, and pharmacy closures tied to PBM practices, while others emphasized the importance of community health centers and independent pharmacies in serving patients. On the 340B program, supporters including Senator Eldridge, Senator Payano, Community Care Cooperative, Fenway Health, the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, and several community health center leaders argued that bills such as H. 1107 and S. 819 would stop discriminatory PBM and manufacturer practices, preserve contract pharmacy access, and protect safety-net providers that say they reinvest savings into care, pharmacy expansion, interpreter services, behavioral health, and other services. Opponents including PhRMA, the Community Liver Alliance, and a public policy analyst argued the program lacks transparency and accountability, has grown beyond its original purpose, and may benefit large hospitals and for-profit entities more than low-income patients. They urged more reporting and oversight rather than expanding protections. On PBM reform, testimony supported bills including H. 1157, H. 1234, S. 724, S. 831, and related measures that would require rebate pass-through, ban spread pricing, limit steering to PBM-owned pharmacies, and improve reimbursement for community pharmacies. Independent pharmacists and patients said current PBM practices raise costs, create administrative burdens, and threaten access to local pharmacies. PCMA, representing PBMs, opposed the reforms, arguing PBMs lower costs, that plan sponsors choose to contract with them, and that the Health Policy Commission and CHIA should complete their ongoing study before new mandates are adopted. The committee also heard support for H. 1322 and S. 734 on specialty medications, and for H. 781 and H. 1305 on medication synchronization to improve adherence. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• For UCF, pretty much, you look, for example, restricted there.
• So, you know, that’s just, I think we’ve all at least said that at least once in our comments.
• all, at least said that at least once in our comments.
• Our sessions are set constitutionally. It will not change.
• But certainly, at least from U.N.F.'

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education met to examine how Florida’s state universities are funded and to begin discussing a possible university funding model. The panel included the State University System chancellor and CFOs from FSU, UF, FAMU, FAU, UNF, and UCF. Members first reviewed major cost drivers, which the universities said are broadly similar across institutions: wages and benefits, equipment and supplies, financial aid, professional services, utilities, IT, and maintenance. Several institutions noted unique pressures from geography, growth, research intensity, and mission, such as UCF’s size and engineering focus, UF’s land-grant and research enterprise, FAMU’s need to recruit top talent while serving a high-Pell student population, and FSU’s large facilities and research obligations. The chancellor also summarized systemwide cost growth since 2012-13, including higher health insurance, retirement, and salary costs, while noting tuition had been held flat. The committee then discussed other revenue sources, including auxiliaries, restricted funds, capital projects, and component units such as foundations and health systems. University leaders explained that many of these funds are restricted to specific purposes, and some, like UF Health, account for a large share of operating expenses. Members also discussed the current performance-based funding process. University representatives generally praised it for transparency, accountability, and its focus on student success, but said the heavy use of one-time funds, nonrecurring appropriations, and unfunded mandates makes long-term planning difficult. FSU and others argued that rising employee costs, waivers, and facilities expenses are not fully covered, while FAMU said performance funding has improved outcomes but can disadvantage institutions serving more low-income students. In response to questions about improvements, the universities suggested more recurring and predictable funding, better coverage of mandated costs, more flexibility in fees, and continued investment in research and strategic priorities. The chancellor said the Board of Governors is considering a version 3.0 of performance funding that would benchmark institutions against peers and Carnegie classifications. The committee also explored whether universities should have more flexibility to set out-of-state tuition and professional school tuition. Most university leaders favored giving boards of trustees more authority, while the chancellor cautioned that increasing out-of-state enrollment or tuition too much could affect legislative support. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with the chair thanking the panel and adjourning the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• The QPA is set by the insurance company.
• The QPA is set by the insurance company.
• And then that sets the new benchmark for all providers.
• the prohibition on municipalities from setting rear side setbacks.
• So we cannot restrict you from building within that envelope.

Bills: HB2211, HB2229, HB2389, HB2403, HB2445, HB2502, HB2620, HB2813, HB2872, HB2889, HB2960, HB4028, HCR2007

Keywords: contractors, subcontractors, resident preference, public contracts, materials supply, Arizona Revised Statutes, local businesses, pregnancy resource center, pregnancy center, crisis pregnancy center, DHS, Arizona Department of Health Services, state appropriation, general fund, nonprofit grant, women's health, maternal health, reproductive health, abortion funding, pro-life

Transcript Highlights:

• So again, that's a total of 234 minimum custody individuals who are housed in more restrictive settings
• So again, that's a total of 234 minimum custody individuals who are housed in more restrictive settings
• It's a its restrictiveness.
• bare minimum year um in restrictive bare minimum year um in restrictive housing.<00:42:04.240>
• And so program you can be set back.

Bills: HB389, HB1166, HB1510, HB1541, HB1605, HB1661, HB1663, HB1678, HB1769, HB1785, HB1801, HB1802, HB1815, HB1824, HB1838, HB1840, HB1853, HB1860, HB1891, HB1952, HB1960, HB1969, HB1970, HB1972, HB1976, HB2050, HB2094, HB2104, HB2158, HB2165, HB2171, HB2208, HB2246, HB2271, HB2300, HB2310, HB2315, HB2319, HB2338, HB2339, HB2343, HB2443, HB2498, HB2551, HB2599, HB2606, SB17, SB83, SB99, SB148, SB411, SB709, SB847, SB874, SB888, SB1032, SB1166, SB2001, SB2014, SB2031, SB2041, SB2050, SB2057, SB2061, SB2074, SB2075, SB2089, SB2095, SB2101, SB2102, SB2108, SB2109, SB2110, SB2125, SB2135, SB2138, SB2140, SB2146, SB2151, SB2152, SB2175, SB2203, SB2239, SB2246, SB2247, SB2253, SB2261, SB2268, SB2271, SB2272, SB2320, SB2340, SB2347, SB2353, SB2363, SB2367, SB2372, SB2376, SB2386

Keywords: HB389, uncrewed aircraft, drone, drones, UAS, unmanned aerial vehicle, misuse of uncrewed aircraft, criminal offense, felony enhancement, drone crime, public safety, police, deputy sheriff, fire department, intoxicated operation, registration number tampering, property damage, bodily injury, Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Package, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Transcript Highlights:

• And I know that their skill set is unique.
• I believe that restricted NP practice anywhere is restricted access to care everywhere.
• We practice in every setting, as you've heard today, both inside the hospital and in outpatient settings
• Those restrictions went beyond and restricted them further from their education and training.
• In prescription-restricted states.

Bills: HB35, HB4490, HB4454, HB2188, HB3078, HB4743, HB2556, HB46, HB5342, HB4783, HB3785, HB5278, HB1639, HB2581, HB4224, HB4070, HB4099, HB4882, HB3794, HB46

Keywords: peer support, first responders, mental health, confidentiality, emergency services, disclosure, next of kin, public information, deceased persons, privacy rights, patient solicitation, marketing practices, healthcare regulation, task force, deceptive advertising, nurse aide, certification, Texas Board of Nursing, healthcare workforce, nursing standards

Transcript Highlights:

• That are under that restriction.
• We get backyard breeders who set up shop wherever.
• There are at least so.
• That's led to where registrants are restricted to where That's led to where registrants are restricted
• Residency restrictions, the bottom line is that all research shows that registry restrictions do not

Bills: HB240, HB2097, HB2731, HB3087, HB3234, HB3319, HB3394, HB3687, HB4105, HB4205, HB4350, HB4462, HB4642, HB4801, HB5403

Keywords: quorum, tax levy, county governance, local government, population regulations, quorum requirement, Texas counties, population threshold, deputy sheriff, civil service, law enforcement, appeals process, sheriff's department, HB 2731, roadside vendors, solicitors, county regulation, border counties, Mexico border, Transportation Code

Summary: The subcommittee on county and regional government heard a long agenda of county-related bills, with most measures left pending after testimony. HB 2097, by Rep. Martinez, would let counties that opt in use an independent hearing examiner instead of a civil service commission for certain deputy sheriff discipline appeals; the bill drew support from CLEET’s Robert Leonard, who said it would be fairer and faster, and it was left pending. HB 4642, by Rep. Gonzalez, would require counties that contract with out-of-state jail facilities to include Texas jail-standard protections and oversight; Gonzalez, detainee Jess Hampton, his wife, Texas Jail Project’s Krish Kundu, and TCJS director Brandon Wood all discussed deaths and poor conditions in Louisiana facilities, staffing shortages, and the need for guardrails and data collection. The bill was left pending. The committee also heard HB 4350, by Rep. Capriglione, allowing peace officers to request redaction of personal information from online real property records. Supporters said officers face targeted threats and should have protections similar to judges; a title industry witness warned about preserving the integrity of land records. The bill was left pending. HB 3687, by Rep. Harless, would require county fire marshals in counties over 100,000 to meet training and certification standards within set timeframes; Harris County Fire Marshal Laurie Christensen supported professionalization, and the bill was left pending. HB 4105 would let very large counties give a local-bid preference for construction and infrastructure contracts, and HB 4205 would require pay parity for similar law enforcement ranks within large counties; both were supported by Harris County officials and constables and left pending. Later, the committee heard HB 5403, which would repeal a special rule limiting Dallas and Tarrant county sheriffs’ control over commissary funds; the author said it would remove an outdated population bracket, and the bill was left pending. HB 4462 would require large counties to allow elected officials named in civil suits to seek outside counsel and have a role in settlement decisions; supporters argued county attorneys and commissioners court can have conflicts of interest, while questions focused on who qualifies and whether the bill could complicate settlements. The bill was left pending. Finally, HB 240, by Rep. Swanson, would restore a five-member quorum requirement for Harris County tax levies, effectively preventing tax action without all commissioners present and defaulting to the no-new-revenue rate if quorum is not met; urban counties opposed it as a potential budget obstruction, while supporters said it protects taxpayers and representation. That bill was also left pending. The transcript ends as the committee begins HB 3319, which would create a civil service system for constable department employees in large counties, but the discussion is cut off before testimony or action.

Transcript Highlights:

• So there at the set of the program it had some initial funding.
• Members, we can do bus rapid transit in this corridor for at least 10% of the cost.
• The inflationary cost of this would be at least in the $200 million range.
• We passed in there restrictions as to how the funding could go.
• We passed in there restrictions as to how the funding could go.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• That's still continuing for at least one year.
• There are restrictions that you have.
• Not in a carceral setting.
• using the least restrictive method appropriate.
• using the least restrictive method appropriate.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission on correctional consolidation and collaboration heard testimony focused on how Massachusetts uses custody levels, staffing, programming, and medical release tools, with Prisoners’ Legal Services arguing that the system is overusing expensive high-security settings and underusing step-down options. Dave Rainey said the incarcerated population has dropped substantially over the last several years, but spending and staffing have not fallen in proportion. He argued that DOC overclassifies people into medium and maximum security, relies too heavily on behavioral assessment units that function like segregation, and keeps people in restrictive settings such as Souza-Baranowski and Shattuck Hospital longer than necessary. He also said medical parole is underused and that many people with serious chronic illness or advanced age pose little public-safety risk and should be released through existing legal pathways. Sheriffs and other commission members pushed back on some of those points, emphasizing that staffing needs are driven by the acuity of the current population, that corrections is not overstaffed, and that classification decisions involve serious public-safety judgments. They also stressed that some high-cost medical placements are necessary because people remain under sentence and require care, and that furloughs and other release tools can create security risks if contraband or substance use is involved. The discussion also covered the role of county sheriffs versus DOC in reentry, with several members saying county systems tend to do more day-to-day step-down and release planning, while DOC has more difficulty moving people through lower-security settings before release. Ben Foreman of MassINC offered a more systemwide, data-focused perspective, praising the state’s transparency and arguing that Massachusetts has made major progress in reducing incarceration and increasing public safety. He said the state still has an opportunity to improve by right-sizing facilities, investing in community-based mental health treatment, and using the commission to better understand the capital and operating costs of the current system. In response to questions, he said he was aware of DOC studies on programs like furlough but had not reviewed recent ones, and he noted that total-control facilities like Souza-Baranowski have long been criticized in the research literature for poor outcomes. Nora Wassel of the Women and Incarceration Project then testified that the commission should issue an interim report and scrutinize the planned new women’s prison, which she said is not justified by current population trends or available data. She argued that women are overclassified under DOC’s own tools, that reentry beds and minimum-security placements are underused, and that the system may be failing to account for women’s distinct medical and reentry needs. The meeting ended with continued discussion of reentry, furloughs, day reporting, and whether consolidation should mean fewer facilities, better step-down pathways, or both.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the goal would be that if they do get in the market, at least we have an age restriction on them.
• But the goal would be that if they do get in the market, at least we have an age restriction on them.
• the lences understand the age least the lences understand the age restriction.<01:06:52.319> That's
• The case for age restrictions is at least as strong, if not stronger.
• The case for age restrictions is<01:58:02.719> at<01:58:02.960> least<01:58:03.360>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all