Transcript Highlights:

• CAP works in a cooperative structure that allows state and local governments to access pre-qualified
• The CAP program fills that gap by providing vetted advisor expertise and a collection of proven deal
• CAP is strictly an advisory body.
• All CAP activities remain subject to legislative oversight and existing procurement laws.
• You take off the cap, you open it up. There are some cells in there that are bad.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We did increase it a little bit a couple sessions ago, but it is capped there.
• We did increase it a little bit a couple sessions ago, but it is capped there.
• Speaking of caps. This is your opportunity. Speaking of caps. Oh, sorry. Out of order.
• Yeah, well, Madam Chair, I somewhat was joking with the caps.
• But I do think if caps maintain or, you know, But I do think if caps maintain or in their current state

Summary: The Judiciary Interim Committee met to begin its study of charitable gaming and the ownership of alcoholic beverage establishments by licensed charitable gaming organizations, a study directed by Senate Bill 2334. Legislative Council gave an overview of the constitutional and statutory framework for charitable gaming, site authorizations, rent limits, proceeds, and recent legislative changes. The Attorney General’s Gaming Division then clarified the financial flow of gaming, explaining that in fiscal year 2025 North Dakota had about $2.5 billion in gross gaming proceeds, with roughly 88-90% paid back in prizes and about $256 million available to organizations after taxes; most of that activity came from electronic pull tabs. Members asked for more detail on winnings, replays, rent, and the breakdown of manufacturer/distributor revenues, and the AG’s office agreed to provide supplemental information. The committee also heard from the League of Cities and the Association of Counties about local site authorization. Cities said they have a limited role in approving gaming sites, can adopt policies after public hearing, may charge up to $100, and can set certain conditions, including local nexus requirements, but cannot require donations or force a specific charity or site. The League said it had worked with stakeholders on a model policy to provide more consistency, though members raised concerns that local requirements could become too restrictive for charities serving broader areas. Counties said the issue is mostly a city matter, with little county involvement beyond minimal site fees and general site approval. The North Dakota Gaming Alliance testified in support of the study and provided IRS-related material suggesting charities may use asset diversification, while emphasizing it had not taken a position on whether charities should own bars. Members questioned whether bar ownership is being used for site stability or to channel charitable gaming dollars, and whether city policies might disadvantage charities with broader missions. The committee also discussed the relationship between gaming organizations, manufacturers, and distributors, including restrictions on incentives and interference, and asked for more information on those entities and their ownership. Later in the meeting, the Racing Commission gave its regular update on live racing, pari-mutuel wagering, ADW providers, purse and promotion funds, a new TRPB contract, and concerns about cease-and-desist actions from other states. Finally, the State Hospital superintendent briefly reported on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s support services, including the SORT team, training, and security assistance for the hospital campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• And unless we elevate housing, sense of community, and workforce, we're almost going to start capping
• And unless we elevate housing, sense of community, and workforce, we're almost going to start capping
• And unless we elevate housing, sense of community, and workforce, we're almost going to start capping
• But you got to create tools that level the playing field without capping and not allowing for growth
• But you got to create tools that level the playing field without capping and not allowing for growth

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Protection, Energy and Environment, and Tourism met for its fourth meeting and approved the February 10 minutes. The committee then heard a presentation from the Cabinet for Economic Development, led by Secretary Jeff Noel, with staff from the cabinet and Kentucky Innovation. The presentation focused on the cabinet’s strategy, including workforce, entrepreneurship, innovation, infrastructure, and placemaking, and emphasized a goal of supporting higher-wage jobs while tailoring programs to urban, non-urban, and rural “heritage communities.” The cabinet reviewed several funding tools and programs, including economic development bond funds, EDF funds, KBI, the Kentucky Innovation Pool, KSTC-related startup and commercialization programs, veteran workforce programs, and Bluegrass State Skills Corporation training funds. Officials said many projects take years to close and that funds are often committed before they are actually disbursed because reimbursements occur after project completion. They also said Kentucky is less competitive than before because of changes in tax policy and that EDF funds are increasingly important to remain competitive with other states. Members asked about whether previously allocated money remained available, whether some funds could be clawed back, and the status of the Blue Oval project. The cabinet said it is oversubscribed, with some committed dollars likely to go unused and be reoffered to other projects. On Blue Oval, officials said progress had been made and described negotiations tied to repayment and job creation requirements. They also discussed the Ford/SK loan structure, saying the companies may assume the full $250 million obligation and that repayments would be required if job targets are not met. The presentation closed with discussion of workforce coordination and the need to connect economic development projects with training and support systems, including possible ripple effects for rural suppliers and related businesses.

Transcript Highlights:

• The school district reserve caps are still not triggered anywhere in the three-year window.
• , which in this case is around around $22 billion, so that's like the max cap on K-14 education.
• That is also included within the that number is the if you were to lift that 10% growth cap which was
• . and and I believe there's roughly six districts that have FTES above the growth cap.
• Sure, if I recall correctly and in statute right now there's a cap on the number of colleges that can

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It increases the FY 26 cap from 350% to 400% of the federal poverty guidelines and removes the cap completely
• It increases the FY 26 cap from 350% to 400% of the federal poverty guidelines and removes the cap completely
• This is the appropriation cap on local school district budgets.
• This is the appropriation cap on local school district budgets.
• <04:19:16.000> on disparity Aid and the cap on disparity Aid and the cap on the<04:19:18.399

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee met to review Division One of a very large budget package, with the chair explaining that the budget was being analyzed in three divisions over multiple days. Members first discussed procedure, including when amendments and line-item votes would be taken, and agreed to proceed with the division’s presentation before questions. Representative Maguire then outlined the division’s approach as a series of tradeoffs to close a large budget gap, emphasizing cuts, some revenue changes, and a focus on overall spending levels as well as individual reductions. The presentation covered a wide range of agencies and policy areas. Major proposed changes included cuts or eliminations to several boards and commissions viewed as costly or duplicative, such as the Housing Appeals Board, Board of Tax and Land Appeals, Human Rights Commission, Commission on Aging, Office of the Child Advocate, and the Personnel Appeals Board, with some functions consolidated into other boards. The division also proposed back-of-the-budget cuts to the Information Technology Department, Judicial Branch, Justice Department, Retirement System, Corrections, and Environmental Services, along with fee increases in several areas. Other notable items included ending marketing for Paid Family Leave, reducing job advertising and tourism promotion, defunding the Arts Council, moving liquor enforcement functions out of the Liquor Commission, and shifting some funds such as the College Savings Commission money to Division Two. Several members questioned specific cuts, especially the elimination of the Council on Aging, the reduction in regional planning commission grants, and the large cut to tourism advertising. Maguire defended the choices as necessary budget tradeoffs, arguing that some programs duplicated work done elsewhere, that regional planning grants were not among the most essential items, and that tourism promotion was a form of spending he viewed skeptically. He also explained that the public defender’s budget was partially restored after a credible claim of a governor’s budget error, and that the committee would continue refining corrections-related cuts because the House was only halfway through the budget process and further changes could still occur in the Senate and conference committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• petition cap and then T visas are 5,000. petition cap and then T visas are 5,000.
• more than double the annual film tax cap more than double the annual film tax cap and<01:05:19.119
• Kieran Pulk Cap Chamber of Commerce. >> Thank you.
• Kieran Pulk Cap Chamber of Commerce. >> Thank you.
• Kieran Pulk Cap Chamber of Commerce. >> Thank you.

Bills: HB1838, HB1870, HB2445, HB2540, HB1886, HB1839, HB2269, HB1939, HB2037, HB1635, HB1941, HB1576, HB2568, HB2267, HB2590, HB2266, HB2597, HB2499, HB2500, HB2502, HB2607, HB2137, HB2357, HB1782

Keywords: HB1838, Hawaii, Act 142, U visa, T visa, U nonimmigrant status, T nonimmigrant status, immigration certification, visa certification, Form I-918 Supplement B, Form I-914 Supplement B, noncitizen victims, crime victim, human trafficking, victim helpfulness, law enforcement certification, prosecutor certification, judicial review, circuit court, confidentiality

Summary: The committee opened testimony on House Bill 1838, relating to visas. Testifiers from the State Health Planning and Development Agency, the legal clinic, the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the ACLU, CARES, and immigrant-rights groups strongly supported the bill, saying it would bring Hawaii into compliance with federal law, standardize and speed up certification for U and T visa applicants, and better protect survivors of crime and trafficking. Supporters emphasized that delays in certification can leave eligible survivors waiting years for federal visa access and can undermine public safety by discouraging victims from reporting crimes. The chair announced there were 103 testimonies in support and one in opposition, and the committee then moved on without taking a vote on the bill in the hearing. The committee next heard House Bill 1870, concerning protected locations and immigration enforcement. Testimony from the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, ACLU of Hawaii, educators, students, and community advocates supported limiting immigration enforcement at schools and other essential-service sites, arguing that families should be able to access education, health care, shelters, libraries, and social services without fear. The Department of Education said it had already issued guidance in March 2025 for how staff should respond when law enforcement comes onto campus, and the Public Charter School Commission noted implementation would need to occur at the school level. Testifiers said the bill would create standardized protocols and protect students and families from fear and disruption; the chair reported 142 testimonies in support, one in opposition, and five comments. The committee then took up House Bill 2445, relating to student safety and law enforcement on campus. The Department of Education again said it had already rolled out statewide guidance and described its process for staff to notify administration, verify law enforcement identification and purpose, and route matters through the complex area superintendent and attorney general, while noting emergencies would be handled differently. A committee member questioned whether the procedures were sufficiently standardized and whether staff were trained for unusual situations. Student and community testifiers supported the bill, saying schools should remain safe havens and that clear procedures are needed if federal immigration enforcement appears on campus. The Department of Law Enforcement testified in opposition to parts of the measure, raising concerns about masking requirements, vehicle markings, officer safety, doxxing, retaliation, costs, and possible supremacy-clause conflicts, and suggested more exemptions and a compromise approach. The chair reported 106 testimonies in support, two comments, and no opposition for the bill before moving on to the next measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would also like to strongly oppose any bill that is going to add or expand the ownership cap, specifically
• I would also like to strongly oppose any bill that is going to add or expand the ownership cap, specifically
• clarify most of the social equity businesses, nearly all of them, do not support increasing the license cap
• Most independent operators do not support an increase in the license cap.
• a few operators to exit, and I want to reiterate the minority operators do not support the license cap

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Cannabis held a hearing on a package of cannabis bills focused on equity funding, delivery expansion, advertising restrictions, medical use, first responders, and ownership limits. Testimony strongly supported S. 87/H. 184 to direct a larger share of cannabis revenue into the Cannabis Social Equity Trust Fund and related equity programs, with speakers arguing the current funding is insufficient and that automatic transfers would better support businesses and communities harmed by the war on drugs. Several witnesses also backed H. 145/S. 89 to allow licensed cannabis delivery into municipalities that ban retail sales and to hotels, saying current rules unfairly limit social equity delivery operators and consumer access. There was also support for H. 176 on medical cannabis eligibility and S. 76 on cannabis use by first responders, while H. 177/H. 178 on new taxes drew opposition from several business owners who said the industry is already heavily burdened and overtaxed. A major point of debate was S. 94/H. 157, which would prohibit billboard advertising for non-prescription marijuana. Public health advocates, parents, and neuroscientists argued that cannabis billboards normalize use, are seen by youth, and are difficult to regulate effectively under the current 85% adult-audience standard. They urged a public health approach similar to tobacco restrictions. In contrast, several industry witnesses opposed further advertising limits, saying cannabis businesses already face strict marketing rules, billboards are privately owned, and additional restrictions would hurt small operators and raise First Amendment concerns. Some witnesses also criticized the proposed increase in ownership caps and consolidation provisions in the broader cannabis bill, warning they would favor large multistate companies over small and social equity businesses. Committee members asked questions about billboard ownership, enforcement of the current advertising rules, and the legal basis for restricting sign content. Witnesses and members also discussed the Cannabis Control Commission’s role, the difficulty of enforcing audience-composition standards, and whether delivery should be treated more like alcohol. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair noted that written testimony would continue to be accepted.

Transcript Highlights:

• Specifically, the bill creates the Community Anti-Displacement and Preservation Program, or CAP, within
• CAP was envisioned and designed to build on these best practices from the local level and bring this
• which for over a decade has provided acquisition capital for land to build new affordable housing, CAP
• CAP is a partnership between the state and nonprofit lenders to quickly distribute program funds at the
• So CAP will change that, and we urge your aye vote today on SB 1091. Thank you. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee heard several housing-related bills. SB 457 would direct HCD to develop statistical formulas based on historical development data to help cities complete housing element site inventories, with the author and supporters arguing it would make RHNA compliance more realistic and less costly; the California Building Industry Association opposed, and the bill was later approved on a 7-1 vote. SB 904 would codify and expand wildfire-rebuilding coordination and reporting practices used after recent fires, with supporters saying it would speed recovery and opponents questioning the need for additional reporting; it passed 11-1. The committee also took up SB 1091, which would create a state acquisition-and-preservation program for unsubsidized affordable housing to prevent displacement; it drew broad support from housing and tenant groups and passed 9-1, with members emphasizing preservation as a key housing strategy. Members also considered SB 1267, which would require EV charger installers in common-interest developments to indemnify associations during installation and make homeowners responsible for costs arising from use of privately owned chargers. The bill was presented as a follow-up to prior HOA-related EV charging legislation, with support from HOA, EV, and climate groups and opposition from the California Association of Realtors pending amendments; it passed 10-0. SB 1117 would clarify that ADU impact fees above the 750-square-foot exemption are charged only on the portion above that threshold, not the entire unit, and supporters said it would remove a fee cliff that discourages slightly larger ADUs. Cities, special districts, and fire agencies opposed or opposed unless amended, citing infrastructure funding concerns, but the bill passed 10-0 after extensive debate. The committee also heard SB 1361, which would prevent local governments from taking actions to avoid SB 79 transit-oriented housing requirements at existing or planned transit stops. Supporters from L.A. Metro, labor, and housing groups said it would protect transit investments and jobs, while the City of Burbank opposed; the bill passed 9-0. Two consent items, SB 722 and SB 1426, were approved without discussion. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly stressed the goals of streamlining housing production, preserving existing affordable homes, and reducing barriers to rebuilding and transit-oriented development.

Transcript Highlights:

• by Senator Talbot protects patients from exorbitant interest rates on medically necessary care by capping
• Members, this bill is one that we voted overwhelmingly to remove the caps for damages caused by any CCS
• Members, this bill is one that we voted overwhelmingly to remove the caps for damages caused by any CCS
• So I concur with the bill as it returns to our House, removing those liability and damage caps from CCS
• We're lowering the cap from $50,000 to $25,000.

Bills: HR310, HR314, HR316, HR317, HR321, HR275, HR276, HR279, HR282, HR286, HR289, HR292, HR295, HR302, HR319, HCR112, HR307, SCR59, SCR61, SCR62, SCR68, SCR69, SCR70, SCR54, SCR55, SCR64, SCR75, HCR3, HCR49, HCR66, HCR67, HB1, HB2, HB42, HB45, HB66, HB71, HB79, HB126, HB133, HB145, HB159, HB167, HB213, HB218, HB222, HB289, HB291, HB312, HB313, HB316, HB324, HB352, HB383, HB398, HB403, HB429, HB457, HB459, HB511, HB549, HB571, HB579, HB591, HB608, HB616, HB624, HB766, HB769, HB783, HB799, HB804, HB864, HB874, HB909, HB951, HB971, HB983, HB1005, HB1017, HB1051, HB1056, HB1095, HB1126, HB1129, HB1186, HB1193, HB1223, HB1224, HB1230, HB1235, HB1249, HB723, HB36, HB140, HB181, HB198, HB205, HB211, HB226, HB259, HB271, HB302, HB335, HB342, HB487, HB513, HB623, HB682, HB730, HB740, HB761, HB775, HB797, HB812, HB816, HB940, HB968, HB979, HB1028, HB1029, HB1038, HB1049, HB1084, HB1161, HB1194, HB1199, HB1201, HB1203, HB1247, HB1256, SB25, SB132, SB155, SB157, SB202, SB228, SB237, SB250, SB405, SB406, SB414, SB433, SB480, SB513, SB149, HB359, SB29, SB43, SB78, HB210, HB258, HB468, HB784, HB134, HB1117, SB42, SB274, SB382, SB449, SB300, HR74, HB463, HB715, HB998, SB80, SB268, SB444, SB479, HB901, HR20, HCR65, HCR71, HCR98, HB284, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB646, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1191, HB1240, HB1255, SB82, SB89, SB97, SB123, HB74, HB119, HB368, HB414, HB552, HB732, HB776, HB848, HB870, HB953, HB956, HB1236, SB208, SB217, SB283, SB387, SB389, SB401, SB408, SB469

Keywords: oil and gas, orphan wells, inactive wells, shut-in wells, marginal wells, plugging and abandonment, well decommissioning, site remediation, site restoration, Oilfield Site Restoration, OSR program, financial security, bonding, taxpayer liability, public liability, offshore wells, onshore wells, coastal erosion, Department of Conservation and Energy, natural resources

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, this bill is one that we voted overwhelmingly to remove the caps for damages caused by any CCS
• Members, this bill is one that we voted overwhelmingly to remove the caps for damages caused by any CCS
• So I concur with the bill as it returns to our House, removing those liability and damage caps from CCS
• It returns to our House, removing those liability and damage caps from CCS projects.
• We're lowering the cap from $50,000 to $25,000. All right, members, Rep.

Bills: HR310, HR314, HR316, HR317, HR321, HR275, HR276, HR279, HR282, HR286, HR289, HR292, HR295, HR302, HR319, HCR112, HR307, SCR59, SCR61, SCR62, SCR68, SCR69, SCR70, SCR54, SCR55, SCR64, SCR75, HCR3, HCR49, HCR66, HCR67, HB1, HB2, HB42, HB45, HB66, HB71, HB79, HB126, HB133, HB145, HB159, HB167, HB213, HB218, HB222, HB289, HB291, HB312, HB313, HB316, HB324, HB352, HB383, HB398, HB403, HB429, HB457, HB459, HB511, HB549, HB571, HB579, HB591, HB608, HB616, HB624, HB766, HB769, HB783, HB799, HB804, HB864, HB874, HB909, HB951, HB971, HB983, HB1005, HB1017, HB1051, HB1056, HB1095, HB1126, HB1129, HB1186, HB1193, HB1223, HB1224, HB1230, HB1235, HB1249, HB723, HB36, HB140, HB181, HB198, HB205, HB211, HB226, HB259, HB271, HB302, HB335, HB342, HB487, HB513, HB623, HB682, HB730, HB740, HB761, HB775, HB797, HB812, HB816, HB940, HB968, HB979, HB1028, HB1029, HB1038, HB1049, HB1084, HB1161, HB1194, HB1199, HB1201, HB1203, HB1247, HB1256, SB25, SB132, SB155, SB157, SB202, SB228, SB237, SB250, SB405, SB406, SB414, SB433, SB480, SB513, SB149, HB359, SB29, SB43, SB78, HB210, HB258, HB468, HB784, HB134, HB1117, SB42, SB274, SB382, SB449, SB300, HR74, HB463, HB715, HB998, SB80, SB268, SB444, SB479, HB901, HR20, HCR65, HCR71, HCR98, HB284, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB646, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1191, HB1240, HB1255, SB82, SB89, SB97, SB123, HB74, HB119, HB368, HB414, HB552, HB732, HB776, HB848, HB870, HB953, HB956, HB1236, SB208, SB217, SB283, SB387, SB389, SB401, SB408, SB469

Keywords: oil and gas, orphan wells, inactive wells, shut-in wells, marginal wells, plugging and abandonment, well decommissioning, site remediation, site restoration, Oilfield Site Restoration, OSR program, financial security, bonding, taxpayer liability, public liability, offshore wells, onshore wells, coastal erosion, Department of Conservation and Energy, natural resources

Summary: The House met with a quorum, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and then received Senate messages, committee enrollment reports, and a series of House resolutions. Members adopted or advanced numerous resolutions recognizing individuals and institutions, expressing condolences, and creating or continuing study task forces on topics including homeownership assistance, speech-language pathology assistant licensure, clean water, Medicaid reporting, voter accessibility, air monitoring, fire chief operations, maternal health, and other issues. Several Senate resolutions were also concurred in, and personal privileges were used to recognize the family of Susan Ann Taylor Bidding and to commend Anita Whitaker LaFontaine and her father, Green Whitaker, Sr. The House then moved through Senate bills on final passage. Bills approved included measures on registrar of voters compensation, dental coverage related to cancer treatment, paid parental leave planning for educators, election supervisor compensation days, weight management services, nursing facility quality oversight, a Slidell hotel occupancy tax subject to voter approval, medical debt interest-rate limits, Medicaid coverage for weight-loss medications, a shrimping-related butterfly net exception, public works design-build contracting, and a municipal lead-service-line replacement measure. Some bills were temporarily returned to the calendar, including measures on water utility service lines and registrar compensation, while others passed with strong bipartisan margins. The chamber also considered Senate amendments to many House bills and concurrent resolutions. Members concurred in amendments on topics such as hospital stabilization, student loan access for certain professional degrees, rural economic development, behavioral health and school policies, retirement and compensation provisions, food labeling, climate-change litigation, school emergency plans, anti-cancer medication coverage, domestic abuse procedures, and several infrastructure and workforce measures. A few bills were rejected for further conference, including some retirement, alternative power, and AI-related provisions. The session ended with the House taking a one-hour recess for lunch, with instructions to return by 12:45.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, it puts a million-dollar cap on this.
• <00:17:29.120> Um, puts a million dollar cap on this.
• Um, puts a million dollar cap on this.
• And what these changes would do would drop the $6,000 to $2,000 with a $3,000 cap. Is that correct?
• And what these changes would do would drop the $6,000 to $2,000 with a $3,000 cap. Is that correct?

Keywords: Finance - Room 216, 19 February, 2026; 1:30 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first heard testimony from Dr. Edney on the state revolving fund program for rural community water associations. He explained that the program has operated since 1997 using EPA grant funding and a state match, with low-interest loans, emergency funding, and loan forgiveness. He said the state match has risen in recent years because of increased federal infrastructure funding, but is expected to decline again as that enhanced funding ends. Members asked where repayment money goes, and he said it stays in the revolving fund rather than going to the general fund. He also discussed EPA pressure for consolidation of small water associations, minimum operational standards, and the possibility of using loan forgiveness incentives to encourage consolidation. No votes were taken on this presentation. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2824, which extends the eligibility dates for certain energy projects to qualify for ad valorem tax exemptions, moving the relevant deadlines from 2026/2027 to 2031. The committee adopted the committee substitute and passed it by voice vote. Next, Senate Bill 2867 revised an earlier employer child care tax credit program. Senator Boyd said the bill simplifies the program, allows a 50% income tax credit for employers providing dependent care during work hours or making at least $2,000 per child direct payments to licensed child care entities, and caps the credit at $3,000 per child per year. A committee substitute also placed a $1 million cap on the overall credit program. Members discussed the need for child care support, the role of federal and state funding, and whether the bill would increase employer participation. The committee adopted the substitute and passed the bill by voice vote. Finally, the committee considered Senate Bill 3109, a simple bill affecting Lafleur's Bluff State Park. Senator Blount explained that the park is managed under a lease with a nonprofit and that the bill would exempt the nonprofit from paying property taxes on the leased state park land. The committee adopted the committee substitute and passed the bill by voice vote, then rose and reported the measure out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• 15 billionaires in the state anyhow—but realistically, a million dollars of income and then you're capped
• I think it was raised earlier where the SALT was capped at, remained capped at $10,000 as opposed to
• Um, I think it was raised earlier where the SALT was capped at, remained capped at $10,000 as opposed
• to jumping ...the SALT was capped at, remained capped at $10,000 as opposed to jumping to the $40,000

Bills: HB2011, HB2089, HB2090, HB2092, HB2477, HB2785

Keywords: individual income tax, subtraction, Arizona Revised Statutes, retirement benefits, adoption costs, charitable contributions, health insurance, premium payment, Arizona State Retirement System, contingent annuitant, long-term disability, benefits limitations, disability compensation, social security, retirement system, elected officials, ASRS, eligibility waiver, age 65, education savings

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2785, a tax conformity measure that would update Arizona statutes to conform to the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026, including retroactive provisions for tax year 2025. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would align state law with tax forms already issued by the Department of Revenue, provide certainty to filers, and deliver about $440 million in tax relief through provisions such as no tax on tips and overtime, a larger standard deduction, and a $6,000 senior deduction. Opponents argued the bill would significantly reduce state revenue, disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers, and should be considered alongside a broader budget plan. After debate and an amendment addressing retroactivity and foreign dividends, the committee approved HB 2785 on a 5-4 vote. The committee then took up several Arizona State Retirement System and education savings bills. HB 2089 clarified the health insurance premium benefit subsidy for retirees and passed unanimously. HB 2090 changed the disability determination period for long-term disability benefits from 24 months within a five-year period to a straight 24-month period and passed 8-1. HB 2092 allowed employees over age 65 to waive ARS participation within 30 days of becoming eligible and also passed 8-1. HB 2477 conformed Arizona’s 529 education savings plan to federal law, including expanded uses and a permanent rollover to ABLE accounts and Roth IRAs; testimony supported the cleanup and simplification, but some members raised concerns about the Roth rollover and possible use of transferred ESA funds. HB 2477 passed 5-3 with one present vote, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• But it still has a $8 million cap per year, and as of right now, we have had $21 million in tax credits
• But it<00:01:50.000> has<00:01:50.640> or<00:01:51.360> it<00:01:51.600> cap<
• > still<00:01:52.240> has<00:01:52.399> a<00:01:52.560> $8 it has or it cap
• it still has a $8 it has or it cap it still has a $8 million<00:01:53.280> cap<00:01:53.520><
• And uh as of right million cap per year.

Keywords: Finance - Room 216, 29 January, 2026; 1:30 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee took up a series of economic development, tax, retirement, alcohol, and property tax bills, with several members explaining that some measures were being extended through repealers or prepared as omnibus vehicles for later floor amendments. Early in the meeting, members discussed a bill extending the Healthcare Industry Zone Act repealer to 2028, noting MDA had requested additional language for a floor amendment and citing roughly $715 million in expected new investment and more than 3,000 jobs since 2012. The committee also passed SB 2832, extending the Mississippi Shoreline Tax Credit program to 2029 with an $8 million annual cap, and SB 2849, extending the SMART business research program repealer to 2028. SB 2843, changing eligible expenses for MDA site development and utility infrastructure readiness, SB 2847, rounding state and local cash charges to the nearest nickel, and SB 2865, a gaming-related tax credit for non-gaming capital projects at casino properties, were also explained and passed without opposition. The committee then considered SB 2882, which prohibits counties from requiring homestead exemption applicants to provide closing statements or disclosures, citing privacy concerns; it was passed. SB 2912, a PERS-requested bill allowing Roth contributions in the state deferred compensation plan and removing an earlier qualified domestic order provision, also passed. The committee next took up SB 2834 and SB 2838 as omnibus vehicles: SB 2834 was described as the Senate omnibus tag bill, and SB 2838 as the qualified resort status bill, which included an addition for a community college campus and golf course in western Mississippi. Both bills received reverse repealers and were reported out. A lengthy discussion centered on SB 2915, which makes technical changes to Mississippi’s native wine laws, removes a repealer, expands tasting room options, and addresses ABC pickup and delivery timing. Senator McMahon offered an amendment to strike the pickup language after consulting with the Commissioner of Revenue, saying the current warehouse setup did not support the option yet; the amendment passed. Senator Sparks raised concerns about ABC delivery delays, the impact on small retailers, and whether the bill could raise commerce clause issues by favoring in-state wineries, but the author said the language conforms to existing distillery provisions. After no further questions, the committee passed the committee substitute and then rose and reported, with the chair noting another meeting would likely be held the following week.

Transcript Highlights:

• an exception for increasing these fees, allowing many of our areas to overcome and sidestep this 50% cap
• Would the state put a cap on the extraordinary circumstance calculation for some period of time?
• And, you know, even if it's a 75% or 100% increase, is there some cap that we would put in?
• The cap maybe on the extraordinary fees, but it might be more that this extraordinary fee statute has
• Cruz or yourself answer that question as to how that happened if there's that cap?

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• State law sets caps for UC and CSU, which allows UC to spend up to 15% of its general fund budget on
• We show our 12% cap limit, and in our most recent report, we show about $298 million a year.
• Now, that's just what counts toward our 12% cap.
• You reminded us about the authority; you have a cap of 12% of debt to get financing to build projects
• What's the cap that you see? Is there a cap? It's 15%, but we're nowhere close to that.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• recent development has been the UNILEV federal imposition of an arbitrary 15 percent indirect cost cap
• on NIH grants in February following by more recent caps on grants from DOE and other federal agencies
• While some reform of the Facilities and Administrative System may be merited, this one-size-fits-all cap
• But in this case, the administration has proposed an across-the-board cap of 15 percent.
• To understand this, what the cap means, we have to look at the funding system.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also appreciate the, uh, the cap being lifted on the AFP, uh, AFFP program. That's very helpful.
• Um, and the lift on the cap for AFFP matters a lot, particularly for more nascent, uh, alternative fuel
• So lifting that cap to unlock those funds to actually be beneficial, is hugely beneficial.
• First, it caps the municipal franchise fee.
• So maybe I need to increase this up to a little bit higher fee, but we do need to have some kind of cap

Transcript Highlights:

• CPIU with the 4% annual cap.
• Tools such as waiver caps and large-scale cuts ensure that people who have access to substance use disorder
• Proposed cap on future inflationary adjustments.
• in the disability waiver rate system as far as staff wages, capping those increases at 4%. which we
• What you're proposing What you're doing with that removal, along with future caps, is raising the cost

Bills: HF2434

Keywords: healthcare, personal care assistance, worker retention, disability services, state funding

Transcript Highlights:

• The reforms you all made in 2023 include a 36% rate cap.
• The reforms you all made in 2023 include a 36% rate cap.
• The bill's $5 to $750 cap on stacking.
• cost cap such as $10 a month.
• It requires all caps transactional fees.

Bills: HF2400, HF1724, HF3437, HF4333, HF2874, HF4052

Keywords: real estate, appraisers, disciplinary actions, sanction matrix, Minnesota Statutes, direct primary care, healthcare agreements, medical services, patient care, health insurance, mortgage fees, residential loans, commercial loans, finance regulations, investment properties, insurance, supplemental health insurance, short-term care, home health care, nursing care

Transcript Highlights:

• So again, I come back to this is a pay-as-you-go kind of benefit, but it is capped based upon what we
• in terms of how much we can do, and further we'd have to change the legislation because that was a cap
• in terms of how much we can do, and further we'd have to change the legislation because that was a cap
• in terms of how much we can do, and further we'd have to change the legislation because that was a cap
• But it's always up there relative to how we are approaching capping it out now on the R&D credit.

Keywords: The first few minutes of this meeting was missed on the live stream. This upload restores those few minutes, 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee met with Secretary Jeff Null and General Counsel Matt Wing of the Cabinet for Economic Development for an overview of the cabinet’s main economic development tools, strategy, and compliance practices. Null said the cabinet uses a data-driven approach focused on competitiveness, site readiness, wages, workforce training, and long-term assets such as roads, rail spurs, water, and sewer improvements. He emphasized that the cabinet tries to balance attracting new employers with supporting existing businesses, and said compliance is a core value of the agency. Null walked members through several programs, including the closing fund, Kentucky Business Incentive (KBI), Bluegrass State Skills Corporation training support, and the KIA sales-tax refund tool for construction materials and equipment. He said the closing fund has received $80 million over two years for projects generally involving at least $10 million in investment, though some flexibility exists. He also explained that Bluegrass State Skills funding is typically about $2,000 to $3,000 per job and can be used flexibly for training, including sending Kentucky workers to be trained elsewhere or paying trainers to come to Kentucky. He described KBI as a pay-as-you-go, incremental tax credit tied to actual jobs and investment, and said the legislature’s tiered refundable credit structure allows more targeted use of incentives in heritage and non-heritage counties. A substantial portion of the presentation focused on compliance and monitoring. Null said incentive agreements are written with commercial terms and spell out jobs, investment, wages, and training commitments. The cabinet requires regular reporting, invoices, and sampling, and can use clawbacks or suspend benefits if companies fail to meet obligations or lose required environmental permits. He said the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority reviews incentive applications in public meetings and often requires company representatives to answer questions before preliminary approval is granted. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.