Transcript Highlights:

• So every $1 billion in capital expenses turns into more than $3 billion that ends up being collected
• Number two, removing the first $15 billion in undergrounding capital investments from the utility rate
• It would still leave the utilities with about $75 billion in new capital expenditures they can add to
• I think we do need to make sure that the cost of capital is one that's attractive.
• So they would help to capitalize the fund the same way that the utilities have done.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard two bills focused on electricity affordability and utility costs. AB 745 would restructure the California Climate Credit by shifting it from lump-sum bill credits to direct reductions in volumetric electricity rates, with the credit timed to summer months when bills are highest. The author and supporting witnesses argued this would better help households during extreme heat and could lower summer rates significantly; supporters also urged consideration of applying the gas climate credit and targeting low-income customers. There was no formal opposition, and the bill passed unanimously, 18-0, to the floor. The committee then took up AB 825, a broader affordability package addressing wildfire mitigation costs, transmission financing, and permitting delays. The bill proposes securitization and removing the first $15 billion of undergrounding capital from utility rate base returns, stronger oversight of wildfire mitigation plans, a public transmission financing program using state and IBank resources, and a task force to review ratepayer-funded programs. Supporters said the bill could produce major long-term savings and improve financing for transmission; opponents and some neutral witnesses raised concerns about liability, wildfire fund participation, impacts on utility credit ratings, and whether the changes could slow undergrounding or destabilize utility finances. After extensive discussion, the committee passed AB 825 to the floor on a 13-0 vote, with several members not voting or reserving their votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• . ...of site infrastructure, such as our Seadrift site, when we're replacing aged assets.
• It helps the investors' bottom line, but it doesn't do anything to the capital.
• The timeline for replacement of our assets and C-drift that currently produce power and steam is on the
• The timeline for replacement of our assets and C-drift that currently produce power and steam is on the
• And it's about securing our position as the energy capital of the world.

Bills: HB 11 , HB14 , HB132 , HB1584 , HB1606 , HB5061 , HB 1041 , HB2286 , HB132

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Summary: The committee first took up pending business and quickly reported several measures favorably, including HB 12, SB 1361, SB 1705, SB 1749, SB 1897, SB 2344, SB 2566, HB 3809, and HB 4215, with most sent to the Local and Uncontested Calendar. HB 12’s substitute clarified a limited midterm review of regulatory agencies tied to Sunset Commission recommendations. SB 2696’s substitute changed med spa regulation from a license to a certificate, with training instead of an exam, plus background checks, continuing education, and two-year renewals. HB 3809 dealt with battery energy storage decommissioning and recycling, and HB 4215 was reported without a substitute. SB 1978, concerning interconnection of electric facilities in ERCOT and federal jurisdiction concerns, was reported out on a 5-3 vote after debate, but then the chair later announced the bill was withdrawn and left pending subject to the call of the chair. HB 1899 was also reported favorably, with one nay. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 14, the advanced nuclear energy bill. Senator Schwertner described it as creating a Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, a nuclear permitting coordinator, a development fund, a completion grant program, and a workforce development program. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including representatives from Fermi America, Dow/X-energy, CPS Energy, Paragon Energy Solutions, Bridge to Nuclear, Aalo Atomics, and the Texas Association of Business, argued that Texas should lead in advanced nuclear, citing future baseload demand, data centers, industrial power needs, supply-chain development, and long-term energy diversification. Opponents, including Public Citizen, Texas Nuclear Watchdogs, Sierra Club, and individual citizens, argued the bill would subsidize unproven, expensive technology, create grants rather than loans, and expose taxpayers to major risk while doing little to meet near-term energy needs. Several members questioned whether the state should fund projects that may not produce grid power for years, and whether the bill’s grant structure and new office were justified. The committee also heard HB 5061, which Senator Schwertner said would prohibit unethical surveillance and misuse of confidential information by state contractors, create a confidential reporting system through the State Auditor’s Office, authorize Texas Rangers investigations, protect whistleblowers, and impose penalties including contract termination, fines, and contracting bans. No public testimony was offered, and the bill was left pending. HB 132, sponsored by Senator Hughes, would extend confidentiality protections for sensitive information to hostile acts by foreign adversaries; it was also left pending after no testimony. HB 1584 was then laid out, with Senator Schwertner explaining it would require utilities to maintain and update priority restoration lists for critical facilities after Hurricane Beryl exposed communication failures, but the transcript cuts off before any action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are leading in deploying clean energy in Minnesota, so let's capitalize on that to create an energy
• It's working to help exciting new clean energy technology. let's capitalize on that to create an let's
• capitalize on that to create an energy<00:02:11.080><c> Innovation</c><00:02:11.879><c> ecosystem</c
• asset asset preservations<00:42:08.280><c> um</c><00:42:08.800><c> asset</c><00:42:09.160><c> preservation
• </c><00:42:09.760><c> that</c> preservations um asset preservation that preservations um asset preservation

Bills: HF1013 , HF1598 , HF1656 , HF2162

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> class to be able to take these assets class to be able to take these assets and<01:30:52.920><c>
• The financial services firms in this state do not have the assets; the assets are held at a higher level
• The financial services firms in this state do not have the assets; the assets are held at a higher level
• The financial services firms in this state do not have the assets; the assets are held at a higher level
• The financial services firms in this state do not have the assets; the assets are held at a higher level

Summary: The committee first heard testimony on House Bill 167, which would add ski, snowboard, and boat wax containing PFAS to the state’s consumer-product restrictions. The sponsor argued the product is already banned in many places, has PFAS-free alternatives, and is used in ways that can directly contaminate water rather than landfills. She cited high PFAS levels in several New Hampshire lakes and said the bill was a simple extension of prior PFAS legislation. A witness also described a personal experience where a liquid ski wax disappeared from the market and later returned, likely because of PFAS concerns. The chair then closed the hearing on HB 167 without a vote. The committee then opened a hearing on House Bill 312, dealing with college athletes’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. Representative Moffett said the bill was modeled on New Jersey law and intended to let student-athletes earn compensation from NIL without losing institutional scholarships, while also requiring licensed representation and setting limits on certain endorsements. He described the measure as proactive because NIL rules are evolving and could create conflicts among schools and future lawsuits. Members questioned whether the bill should apply to two-year institutions, whether it should exclude firearms and weapons, and whether the scholarship protections would cover need-based or academic aid as well as athletic scholarships. Moffett said the scholarship language was intended to protect scholarships generally, but not need-based aid specifically, and he acknowledged discomfort with some of the endorsement restrictions. Public testimony on HB 312 was mixed. One supporter, a former Division III athlete and coach, backed the bill but urged removal of a section allowing institutions or athletic bodies to use an athlete’s NIL without compensation, arguing most New Hampshire athletes do not receive NIL money and should not have to work extra jobs to cover basic expenses. The chair also raised concerns about the bill’s contractual and identity-rights implications, referencing prior committee work on a J.D. Salinger-related identity case and noting the committee had previously declined to get involved in similar contractual disputes. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaking of the bonding in the bill, the capital investments for you today fall into two categories.
• are responsible, affordable, and aligned with the Commonwealth's broader capital plan.
• We have $25 million for business expansion capital, which will help Massachusetts retain and attract
• We're competing globally for business, talent, and capital.
• The question is: do we want to become the scam capital of New England?

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets

Summary: The House Bonding Committee met to hear testimony on H. 5527, the Mass Wins Act, with Secretary of Economic Development Eric Paley opening by describing the bill as a follow-on to Mass Leads. He said the proposal includes $305 million in bond authorizations, with $180 million for new programs and $125 million to expand existing ones, plus $140 million in deauthorizations of unused or redundant authorizations. He highlighted investments in applied AI and quantum, robotics, business expansion capital, defense innovation, global business attraction, ag tech and food science, downtowns, and the creative economy, and said the bill is intended to support geographic equity and small business growth across the Commonwealth. Committee members questioned the administration on several policy sections, including the MassCEC climate-tech certification language, housing-related provisions tied to 40B compliance and site plan review, the removal of the LCSW exam, AI transparency and federal preemption concerns, and the effect of lower LLC filing fees. Paley generally said some contested sections were added by the Economic Development Committee rather than the administration, defended the MassCEC discretion language as necessary for climate certification, and said the administration would follow up on committee-added provisions. He also said the bill’s housing provisions were meant to help address the state’s need for more homes and that the deauthorizations were housekeeping measures that did not affect current capital plan projects. Public testimony covered a wide range of topics. AARP and local advocates urged a statewide ban on cryptocurrency ATMs, arguing they are heavily used in scams, impose high fees, and drain money from seniors and local economies. Housing groups supported codifying site plan review and adding parking reform and YIGBY-style housing on faith-owned land. Building trades asked to include off-site fabrication in prevailing wage law. The Massachusetts Public Banking Campaign backed the bill and urged inclusion of a public bank concept. Several witnesses supported Section 106, the Transparency and Frontier AI Act, as a way to require safety plans, audits, incident reporting, and whistleblower protections for the largest AI companies, while an AI startup group argued the section would overregulate smaller firms and should be separated from the bond bill. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• They would have to verify their assets and show that their home equity value does not exceed $1 million
• And this is H.R. 1, or this is part of the asset test that... It's H.R. 1. This is H.R. 1.
• They have higher assets than others depending on what programs they like.
• So you have middle-class families that are depleting all their assets and becoming IHSS recipients.
• in effect, the Capital Expansion Program and the Preservation Program.

Transcript Highlights:

• jobs, so we're not just a social construct; we're also an infrastructure company where we can build capital
• programs. where we can build capital programs.
• We can build operating fees now on the urban side; we look at more capital dollars.
• I looked at it as an asset, particularly during this time of Workforce Development, which all of you
• been operating since 2017, and we have about 1,300 accounts with an amount of about $7 billion in assets

Bills: HB52 , HB89 , HB141 , HB52 , HB89 , HB141

Committee: Senate Finance and Taxation General Fund

Keywords: income tax, CHOOSE Act, education funding, ABLE account, tax credits, poverty threshold, legislative funding, HB89, Medicaid, pregnant women, pregnancy, prenatal care, ambulatory prenatal care, presumptive eligibility, temporary Medicaid coverage, Alabama Medicaid Agency, maternal health, low-income women, health coverage, eligibility determination

Transcript Highlights:

• improvements, capital assets, all sorts of those things.
• And we have a capital assets module.
• And we have a capital assets module.
• And our capital assets program allows the county to input their capital assets, and we also have a depreciation
• Capital assets, and we also have a depreciation module in there, an inventory, and reporting on through

Summary: The subcommittee of the Tax Reform and Relief Committee met with a quorum to begin its study of whether the content of North Dakota real estate tax statements should be revised to improve transparency. Legislative Council staff reviewed the background for the study, including House Bill 1176, current statutory requirements for tax statements, and recent changes such as separate line items for bonded debt, primary residence credit, and legacy fund-related amounts. The Tax Department then explained the current statement format and noted that the form is prescribed and approved by the tax commissioner, with changes typically driven by statute and implemented collaboratively with counties and vendors. County officials from the North Dakota Association of Counties described the full annual process for preparing budgets, setting levies, calculating taxable values, and issuing notices and tax statements. They said counties spend significant time coordinating with taxing districts, neighboring counties, and software vendors, and that the new budget hearing notices and valuation notices have not generated much public response. Members raised concerns about the usefulness and clarity of certain line items, especially the legislative tax relief calculation and the primary residence credit, and discussed whether the current statement creates confusion rather than transparency. Testimony also addressed the 3% cap, mill levy worksheets, assessment cycles, and the role of county auditors and tax directors in maintaining accurate values. The committee also heard from software vendors CPT and Tyler Technologies about how legislative changes are programmed into tax systems and how online taxpayer portals can provide more detailed breakdowns of tax bills. Vendors said changes required by law are generally absorbed in contracts rather than billed directly to counties, and they demonstrated web tools and pie-chart style breakdowns that show where tax dollars go. NDACO presented a survey of eight counties estimating tax statement preparation and mailing costs, concluding that outsourced printing tends to be cheaper on average and that total statewide tax statement costs may be roughly $600,000, though the estimate was based on limited data. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational and focused on gathering testimony and identifying issues for possible future recommendations or bill drafts.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><03:24:27.200><c> and</c> unions must be well capitalized and unions must be well capitalized and
• ,</c><03:50:06.160><c> well-managed</c> well capitalized, well-managed well capitalized, well-managed
• billion for well capitalized and to six billion for well capitalized and well-managed<03:52:05.040><
• </c><03:55:09.199><c> to</c> takes nearly $6 billion in assets to takes nearly $6 billion in assets to
• </c> our nation's capital, Washington, DC. our nation's capital, Washington, DC.

Transcript Highlights:

• large energy users to prevent cost shifts to other ratepayers, and to also try to avoid stranded assets
• They should not be forced to pay for stranded assets of wealthy, well-performing companies.
• They should not be forced to pay for stranded assets of wealthy, well-performing companies.
• The first is the risk of stranded assets.
• But for you to be here in our state capital today, I just want to thank you for sharing that perspective

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard several bills focused on utility rates, wildfire safety, carbon capture, methane reduction, large energy users, low-income energy programs, and clean energy supply chains. Early items included SB 613, which would direct state agencies to prioritize reducing methane emissions from imported fossil fuels, and SB 614, which would allow California to move forward with carbon dioxide pipeline safety rules and potentially lift the state’s moratorium on new CO2 pipelines. Both bills drew support from advocates and industry-related witnesses, with no opposition registered at the time they were presented, and the committee indicated it would vote once quorum was established. After quorum was called, the committee took up SB 57, which would require the Public Utilities Commission to establish tariffs for large energy users such as data centers to prevent cost shifts to other ratepayers and address stranded infrastructure costs. Supporters argued the bill would protect affordability and encourage clean energy use, while opponents, including utilities and business groups, warned it could create uncertainty and interfere with existing regulatory processes. The committee also heard SB 256 on wildfire mitigation and emergency response, including undergrounding, PSPS communication, and removal of abandoned lines; supporters emphasized the need for stronger action after recent fires, while utilities raised concerns about duplicative requirements and public disclosure of sensitive infrastructure information. Both SB 57 and SB 256 were approved on roll calls. The committee then heard SB 647, which would expand and standardize oversight of low-income energy savings programs and performance metrics, with strong support from community advocates and some neutral or “tweener” positions from utilities that sought further work on data collection and implementation. SB 787 followed, proposing a state strategy to coordinate supply chains and workforce development for clean energy industries including EVs, building decarbonization, and offshore wind; it received broad support and no opposition. The committee also considered SB 332, a study bill on utility ownership models and affordability reforms, which drew strong support from consumer and climate advocates but opposition from utilities and business groups concerned about bias, investor signals, and executive compensation provisions. The consent calendar was later approved, and several bills were reported out with votes or held open for absent members to add on.

Transcript Highlights:

• The state funds 100% of upfront capital, and the system repays the state for the perpetual capital repayment
• Next, aging asset risk… controls the build-out of decisions.
• Next, aging asset risk. Least-cost build-out strategies. Next, aging asset risk.
• Option two: keep the current governance structure and leverage the capital repayment stream.
• Those identified $435 million in future capital improvement needs just in those 11 cities.

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the players are in this asset class. the players are in this asset class.
• And in our in this single family asset.
• for investment, development, or disposure of specific assets.
• for investment, development, or disposition of specific assets.
• for investment, development, or disposition of specific assets.

Bills: HF3806 , HF2687 , HF497

Committee: House Housing Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Right now, we manage about $32.5 billion in assets.
• The question about speculative assets: yes, that's kind of a what's-happening-today kind of question.
• I think there's a number of assets that are out there now, not necessarily alternative assets, but just
• traditional assets that may be considered very speculative because of the nature of the capitalization
• Right now, the LGP has $7.8 billion in assets under management.

Bills: HB2056 , HB2202 , HB2207 , HB2224 , HB2303 , HB2344 , HB2532 , HB2759 , HB2798

Committees: House Appropriations , House House Appropriations Committee of Reference

Keywords: brackish water, groundwater, desalination, water resources, feasibility study, environmental impact, dementia care, telementoring, healthcare education, rural communities, grant funding, braille, disability access, education funding, state corrections, inclusion, produce incentive, agriculture, economic support, funding

Transcript Highlights:

• to generate the capital needed for continued build-out.
• If you're able to raise a lot of that private capital, we talked about that earlier.
• , and so now... ...assets within that community that there was a vision of them being served.
• And also you have the risk of potential stranded assets, right?
• That obviously takes significant capital up front, as we’ve talked about.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan and next steps for the project. Chair Cortese opened by noting major changes since the 2024 plan, including new leadership, a bottoms-up review, scope changes in the Central Valley, loss of federal funds, and renewed interest in private investment and value capture. The Authority’s CEO, Ian Chaudhary, presented the project as moving into a construction and track-laying phase, citing progress on Central Valley structures, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations, and a new procurement for track and systems. He said the plan reflects a more disciplined, optimized approach, with the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment targeted for revenue service around 2033 and the broader Phase 1 corridor envisioned as commercially viable through ancillary revenues, public-private partnerships, and future private financing. Committee members questioned the Authority about station relocations, single-tracking, tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, transparency, and the feasibility of private financing. Chaudhary said the Merced and Bakersfield station locations were still under discussion with local governments and that no contracts had been finalized. He defended the reduced scope and single-track approach as a just-in-time strategy to avoid overbuilding, while maintaining high-speed standards. He also said the Authority was exploring land value capture, broadband, energy, and other corridor-based revenue sources, but acknowledged that some tools would require legislative action and that private financing options were still being evaluated. Several senators expressed support for the project but raised concerns about permitting delays, local opposition, constitutional and statutory limits, and the need for stronger accountability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General then gave critical assessments of the draft plan. LAO staff said the plan assumes major statutory changes, understates risk, lacks transparency about scope changes, and may not fully fund even the smaller Merced-to-Bakersfield segment once borrowing costs and other uncertainties are considered. Inspector General Ben Belknap said the draft plan does not comply with newer statutory requirements in SB 198 and AB 377, citing three main deficiencies: unauthorized scope changes to the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, an inadequate funding plan that omits financing costs, and missing procurement milestone dates. He said the Authority’s presentation obscures the true cost and schedule impacts of the project changes, and that incomplete reporting limits legislative oversight. The Authority responded that it would address the OIG’s findings in the final business plan, and committee members indicated they expected a written response on compliance issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also enables meaningful public-private partnerships where private capital can take on risks, bring
• to generate the capital needed for continued build-out.
• If you're able to raise a lot of that private capital, we talked about that earlier.
• And also you have the risk of potential stranded assets, right?
• That obviously takes significant capital up front, as we’ve talked about.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• We gave a picture of whether we're keeping up or falling behind maintaining our pavement assets.
• </c><01:28:56.480><c> Um</c><01:28:56.800><c> so</c> maintaining our pavement assets.
• Um so maintaining our pavement assets.
• So so the asset sustainability agree.
• </c><01:31:26.960><c> highway</c> program and the capital highway program and the capital highway improvement

Committee: House Transportation Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a passion for these assets that we all enjoy in the state.
• And to be part of that... ...for these assets that we all enjoy in the state.
• Liquid Space is a company I was chief operating officer of for about three years, a venture capital-funded
• And these are really valued assets that we want to continue to invest in, but we need to do that smart
• and effectively. ...assets that we want to continue to invest in, but we need to do that smart and effectively

Committee: Senate Resources and Environment

Transcript Highlights:

• Next, we'll take up tab 2, Senate Bill 314 on issuers of digital assets by Senator Burton.
• These accounts are legally separated or protected, and each insured's assets are kept in its own wall
• These accounts are legally separated or protected, and each insured's assets are kept in its own walled-off
• The assets in one participant's account may not be used to pay liabilities in another unless the respective
• PCCs actually guarantee that each cell within the company will be shielded not only from sharing capital

Summary: The Senate Committee on Banking and Insurance met with a quorum present and heard a full agenda of bills, most of which were reported favorably. Early in the meeting, SB 1000 on trust fund interest for attorney trust accounts was explained as setting a floor and ceiling tied to the Wall Street Journal prime rate and passed without objection after supportive testimony from banking and credit union groups. The committee then took up CS/SB 1082 on a statewide provider and health plan claim dispute resolution program; the sponsor described it as a way to move emergency out-of-network payment disputes away from costly litigation and into an independent dispute resolution process modeled on the federal No Surprises Act. A proposed amendment drew significant questions from senators and concerns from the Florida Insurance Council about confusion over state versus federal eligibility and possible effects on contracted rates, and the sponsor ultimately withdrew the amendment. The underlying bill was then supported by health care and insurance stakeholders and reported favorably. SB 684 on electronic signatures for total loss vehicles and vessels also passed, with Progressive Insurance waiving in support. The committee next approved CS/SB 158 on pet insurance, which requires continuing education for agents, clearer consumer disclosures, and annual reporting to OIR; the amendment was technical and adopted. SB 1494 on breast cancer screening coverage was presented as expanding required coverage for mammograms and supplemental screenings for certain insurance products, and it passed with support from cancer and radiology groups. CS/SB 314 on digital asset issuers was amended to create a Florida framework for payment stablecoin issuers consistent with the federal GENIUS Act, allowing state-level regulation as an alternative to federal supervision, and was reported favorably. SB 1500 on uncontested probate proceedings, including higher small-estate thresholds and clearer authority for personal representatives, also passed after a banking-related amendment requiring letters of administration for safe deposit box access was adopted. Later, the committee approved CS/SB 618 on workers’ compensation insurance, which raises the consent-to-rate cap for workers’ comp policies from 10% to 20% and adjusts the Florida Workers’ Compensation Guarantee Association board membership; a carrier representative testified that the change would help keep more high-risk accounts in the voluntary market. CS/SB 1568 on a Florida Stable Coin Pilot Program was amended to remove authority for DFS to create a Florida coin, limit the pilot to existing stablecoins with at least $1 billion market capitalization, and require qualified public deposit handling; it then passed. CS/SB 838 on electronic payments for retail installment contracts clarified that convenience fees for electronic payments are permissible while preserving a fee-free option, and it was reported favorably after questions about consumer access to free payment methods. SB 1452, the Department of Financial Services agency bill, made a wide range of administrative changes affecting My Safe Florida Home, unclaimed property, licensing, bail bonds, and other DFS functions; a late-filed amendment on title insurer appointments was adopted, and the bill passed. The committee also approved SB 1706 on the My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Program, targeting condo hardening assistance to owner-occupied units meeting income and occupancy criteria, and SB 990 on protected cell captive insurance companies, which the sponsor and industry witnesses said would modernize Florida law and promote insurance competition and economic activity. The meeting ended with all bills on the agenda reported favorably and the committee adjourning without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• electric customers, including shifting costs from data centers to other customers, stranded utility assets
• , that we're not bidding up the price of those generation assets to the point that your grandmother starts
• The exemption resulted in a $200 million investment into that facility with private capital.
• It's a strategic investment that produces jobs, capital investments, and long-term tax revenue for the
• In fact, I'd like to say that we're the data center capital of Washington State, and I'm here to testify

Bills: SB6171 , SB5965 , SB5982 , SB6004 , SB6010 , SB5941 , SB6050

Committee: Senate Environment, Energy & Technology

Keywords: energy facilities, large energy consumers, regulation, environment, sustainability, retail bags, pollution, customer impact, consumer-owned utilities, clean energy, port districts, market customers, energy transformation, renewable energy, public entities, electric generation, contracting, SB 6010, Washington energy siting, EFSEC

Transcript Highlights:

• It's an amended contract that manages the Arkansas Highway Employee Retirement System Trust assets for
• It's an amended contract that manages the Arkansas Highway Employee Retirement System Trust Assets for
• They also do asset allocation for the whole portfolio, including Meridian and Garcia-Hamilton.
• And if we get consistently below that minimum amount, look at adding capital to it. Right.
• We need to be having a conversation about injecting capital at that point.

Committee: All JBC-PEER REVIEW

Summary: The PEER Review Subcommittee met to consider a large agenda of appropriation, transfer, contract, and other review items. Members approved temporary appropriation requests in Sections B through F, including funding for prosecuting attorneys, education-related adjustments, school operating needs, labor licensing divisions, ARPA fund returns from Workforce Services, IIJA grants for state police CDL implementation and a forestry-related county grant, reserve fund transfers for teacher scholarships, school facilities, and economic development, and a Commerce reallocation tied to organizational realignment. Cash fund requests in Section G and budget classification transfers in Section H were also reviewed, along with pay plan requests in Section I, overtime requests in Section J, and multiple methods of finance in Section K. The committee also reviewed discretionary grants in Section L, including agriculture promotion board grants and DHS aging/adult behavioral health grants, plus RFQs, construction contracts, intergovernmental contracts, and out-of-state contracts in Sections M1 through M5. Several items drew questions from members. Workforce Services explained that $225,000 in TANF-related funds would be returned to the federal government because the two-year hold period for uncashed or moved checks had expired. Commerce officials described the $25 million site infrastructure grant program, saying it supports site development, due diligence, and infrastructure build-out at eligible sites of 30 acres or more, including rural communities, with grant agreements and matching requirements providing accountability. DHS and Education officials answered questions about the Care Solace mental health referral contract, saying it is a statewide concierge/referral service that helps schools connect students to Arkansas providers and follow up so students do not fall through the cracks; members asked for more information on provider selection, school-day scheduling, and Arkansas vendor participation. The committee held one item over: the DHS discretionary grant item for the RSVP retired senior volunteer program in L2, after concerns were raised about whether state general revenue was being used effectively and how much administrative overhead the providers retain. Members also questioned several contracts, including a DHS sole-source contract with EMSLink for document management software and a DHS bridge contract with Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care for Medicaid inspections of care reviews; in both cases, agency staff explained the need to avoid service disruption and said follow-up information would be provided. A Department of Corrections reentry center contract was discussed for its recidivism results, and ARDOT retirement-system investment contracts were briefly explained. The meeting ended after a lengthy discussion of the Medicaid Trust Fund balance, with DFA and DHS officials saying the state is expected to finish the fiscal year without exhausting the fund, that a restricted reserve of $100 million is available as a backstop, and that the larger question is what minimum balance should be maintained going forward.