Transcript Highlights:

• That's not how those calculations work.
• That's not how those calculations work. >> Yep. Fair. Okay.
• I'm Senator interest to the committee.
• <01:38:06.000> some<01:38:06.159> were interesting about that is some were interesting
• Um, it's been interesting, definitely a decrease in the Canadian tourists, and it's been interesting

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It makes no changes to the calculation of the minimum guarantee.
• There's a figure on page three of our handout that goes through the current calculation, and I don't
• It's interesting that we keep calling it a two-party plan.
• And it's interesting that we keep calling it a two-party plan.
• The appropriations limit is a little bit of an apples-and-oranges calculation, if I may.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 2579, Petrie-Norris, common interest developments, do pass. That's out on an A roll call.
• AB 2579, Petrie-Norris, common interest developments, do pass. That's out on an A roll call.
• AB 1751, Cork-Silva, townhomes, do pass as amended to clarify the bill does not impact the calculation
• AB 1761, Rogers, electricity calculations, do pass. That's out on an A roll call.
• AB 1793, Ward, cash payment calculation, do pass. That's out with Republicans not voting.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee held a suspense-file hearing on May 14, 2026, reviewing hundreds of Assembly bills and a few committee bills. The chair opened by explaining the committee’s budget constraints and the factors used in suspense decisions, including fiscal impact, return on investment, effects on constituents, and protection of the state’s social safety net. The agenda was organized alphabetically by author, and the committee noted that results would be posted later that day online. The committee then acted on a very large number of measures, sending many bills to the Assembly floor on do pass or do pass as amended motions, while holding many others in committee. Topics covered a broad range of policy areas, including housing, health care, education, labor, public safety, wildfire mitigation, water, energy, transportation, cannabis, immigration, and state governance. Many bills were amended to narrow scope, make implementation contingent on appropriations or existing resources, remove provisions, or clarify agency responsibilities; several bills were held without further action. Among the notable actions, the committee advanced bills on items such as Medi-Cal services, child care, wildfire-related programs, housing financing, school and college issues, public safety and criminal justice, environmental and energy policy, and various consumer and business regulations. Some measures were sent out on A or B roll calls, with Republicans often not voting on amended bills. The hearing concluded after the committee reported that a large number of bills had been moved to the Assembly floor, either as do pass or do pass with amendments, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We can calculate what the impact of that would have been. Yeah, I'm just a little bit curious.
• The compression percentage is calculated based upon the overall growth of values. from year zero to year
• Homestead exemption, but the values that we had at the time to do the calculation were $40,000 values
• the formula is you're going to increase the district's operating budget and that may change the calculation
• Do you foresee any changes in that in that calculation at all?

Keywords: committee meeting, legislation, public testimony, discussion, procedural

Summary: The meeting covered various topics, but specific discussions and bills were not detailed in the available transcript. Despite the lack of documented debates or acknowledgments, it was noted that committee members were present, and there may have been attempts to address crucial legislative matters. The dynamics of the meeting suggested a standard procedural gathering where routine insights were likely shared among the attendees.

Transcript Highlights:

• The fee calculation is very arduous and often not calculated correctly by the folks who submit it, so
• I mean, you could have somebody that represents interests if they're from lakes, maybe write interests
• , river interests, or lakes interests.
• <03:05:37.160> River<03:05:37.680> interests<03:05:38.239> or maybe write interests
• River interests or maybe write interests River interests or lakes interests<03:05:42.359> they

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the Department of Environmental Services on proposed changes in House Bill 2 and related technical changes in House Bill 1 tied to the governor’s permitting realignment initiative. The proposal would move environmental review staff from Fish and Game and DNCR to DES to create a more centralized “one-stop shop” for applicants needing DES permits, especially for wildlife and natural heritage reviews. DES said the goal is to speed permitting, support a 60-day review clock, and improve coordination among agencies while keeping the substantive review work in place. Members asked about staffing impacts, the scope of the transferred duties, and whether the change would create redundancy or weaken the other agencies. DES said most of the affected staff work primarily on these reviews, though Fish and Game staff also handle other state and federal reviews, which is why the proposal was adjusted to keep one of the four Fish and Game positions there and move three to DES, along with two positions from DNCR. DES also described a new supervisory position in HB 2 to manage the transferred staff within its land resources bureau. Officials said the reviews would still be done by specialists, but under DES supervision, and that the agencies would continue to coordinate recommendations on species impacts and mitigation. The committee also discussed fee increases intended to offset costs, including a 50% increase in wetlands fees and a 100% increase in alteration-of-terrain fees, with the department saying the changes would cover the new positions. Members raised concerns about impacts on private homeowners, possible incentives to work without permits, and whether fines should be used more as a revenue source or for mitigation. DES said wetlands permits are roughly split between homeowner-related and commercial projects, that permit-by-notification already creates a two-tier structure for smaller projects, and that enforcement relies partly on public complaints and online permitting systems. The department also said most fines currently go to the general fund and vary widely year to year, with about $75,000 budgeted, and that the proposal would also create permit-by-notification authority for alteration-of-terrain projects between 100,000 and 150,000 square feet, mirroring language in Senate Bill 110. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• > the<00:03:55.280> gun An interesting fact about the gun An interesting fact about the
• > uh<00:26:37.520> the interesting perspective around uh the interesting perspective around
• :37:04.320> student we calculate an assigned student we calculate an assigned student responsibility
• We use that model to calculate a student's state grant award for the given fiscal year.
• compared with the previous calculation compared with the previous calculation and<00:41:06.400><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So if we have any comments from interested people, please come forward.
• What's interesting...
• And we did an interesting word cloud.
• And I think it'd be interesting.
• So I think it's going to make for some interesting discussion.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee was called to order, a quorum was established, and the minutes from the prior meeting were approved. The first major presentation came from Montana Public Employees Retirement System executive director William Hollahan, who gave an overview of Montana’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Compensation Act plan. He explained that the plan covers volunteer firefighters in unincorporated areas, is funded by 5% of state fire insurance premium taxes, and currently serves 228 departments with about 2,936 active members and 1,242 retirees. He described eligibility rules, annual training and reporting requirements, benefit levels for partial and full pensions, disability, death, medical, and funeral benefits, and said the plan is actuarially sound with roughly $60 million in assets and a funded ratio slightly above 100%. Committee members asked about prior-service credit, whether EMS personnel are included, the effect on recruitment and retention, and whether expanding coverage would require a funding analysis; Hollahan said prior service is not credited, EMS is not currently included, and any expansion would need financial review. Tim Walleen of Workforce Safety and Insurance then presented a draft North Dakota workers’ compensation solution for volunteer firefighters and volunteer EMS personnel. He explained that volunteer responders are already covered by workers’ comp for medical and wage-loss benefits, but the proposal would set a minimum annual wage of $30,000 for calculating wage-loss benefits for qualifying volunteers, with the benefit paid at two-thirds of that amount. Representative Porter suggested tying the volunteer definition to existing code rather than a fixed dollar amount, and Walleen agreed. Questions focused on whether search and rescue or other volunteer emergency services could be included, whether departments would face new paperwork, and whether volunteer organizations can already elect coverage; Walleen said there would be no additional paperwork and that volunteer coverage is already available. The committee also heard from volunteer fire service representatives and the state fire marshal. An Oakes-area firefighter, Mr. Olson, testified that small departments are struggling with retention, communication, and administrative burdens, especially around separate bookkeeping and funding rules for donated or fundraising money, and he said departments need clearer guidance from the state. State Fire Marshal Dr. Matthew Clark introduced himself and outlined a broader effort to improve education, support, and coordination for fire departments, including a planned 10% audit of certificates of existence beginning in 2027, more outreach through his office, and better assistance with training, reporting, and grant access. He said his office is authorized under current law to provide these services, but the role has been vague and underused. Finally, Arnagard Rural Fire District Chief Rick Schreiber testified in favor of new recruitment and retention ideas, including retirement-style benefits, health insurance, tax incentives, scholarships, grants, and more remote or regional training. He said volunteer departments are losing members, that local tax and donation funds are already stretched, and that any new retirement or incentive program should be sustainable and likely involve a mix of state and local support.

Transcript Highlights:

• population because we have those benefits coming in and other transfer payments coming into our calculation
• So we had seen a surge during the pandemic when the Federal Reserve lowered the interest rate to pretty
• So we had seen a surge during the pandemic when the Federal Reserve lowered the interest rate to pretty
• So it's interesting to hear that it's such a major cost driver.
• I can tell you how this was calculated.

Summary: The committee met to hear Amy Baker’s presentation on Florida’s constitutionally required long-range financial outlook for fiscal years 2026-27 through 2028-29. Baker said the forecast reflects slower but still positive economic growth, continued above-average personal income growth, rising wages, and population growth that is increasingly driven by in-migration as Florida’s senior population expands. She highlighted weakening housing-related revenue, especially documentary stamp taxes, softer consumer sentiment, and the expectation that Florida will pass 25 million residents by 2030, with nearly a quarter of the population age 65 or older. Baker said the outlook largely retained the March 2025 general revenue forecast, but the Legislature’s 2025 session actions significantly improved near-term funds available by redirecting or freeing up money, including contingency appropriations and reversions. She noted total state reserves are just under $15 billion, or about 30% of general revenue, and that the budget stabilization fund is at its constitutional maximum. The main spending pressures in the outlook were critical needs, led by a new emergency preparedness and response fund transfer and Medicaid growth driven mainly by medical inflation and behavioral analysis costs in managed care, not by caseload growth. Other high-priority needs were also identified, and Baker said the first year shows a projected surplus, but years two and three show shortfalls, meaning fiscal strategies will still be needed. Members questioned Baker about the accuracy of the forecast, Medicaid managed care costs, the emergency preparedness fund, federal funding assumptions, and whether recent federal legislation was reflected in the numbers. Baker said the outlook is a good representation of the total picture, though the Legislature will likely adjust it as conditions change, and that more information on federal changes would come in later estimating conferences. Senator Trumbull asked about the governor’s veto of $750 million, and Baker said it simply returned to unallocated general revenue rather than being spent or added to the budget stabilization fund. The chair closed by warning members to expect a difficult budgeting process and noting that the committee would adjourn without further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the way that that amount is calculated is it's using the state's share of the marginal cost rate
• So the way that would be calculated is taking that $11,000 or so and multiplying it by the enrollment
• We haven't done the exact calculation, but we are working on some calculations that look at the different
• So I'm assuming that's the same because we're all working together on this, but certainly interested
• So I'm assuming that's the same because we're all working together on this, but certainly interested

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held an oversight hearing on the California State University system covering enrollment, core operations, Title IX/civil rights, and basic needs. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s 2026-27 budget does not change CSU enrollment targets from the prior year and proposes a 5% ongoing General Fund increase for core operations as the final year of the compact. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended a lower resident undergraduate enrollment target than the Governor’s proposal, separate funding for enrollment growth rather than folding it into base, a smaller or no base increase tied more closely to inflation, earmarking some base funds for capital renewal, retiring deferred payments, and avoiding new multi-year compact commitments. CSU said enrollment has rebounded for three straight years, but growth is uneven across campuses, with several Northern California campuses still facing structural declines tied to demographics and community college pipelines. CSU described a multi-year reallocation plan shifting about 10,000 FTE and $89 million in ongoing funding toward higher-demand campuses, plus $40 million in one-time support, and said seven campuses submitted turnaround plans aimed at recovering enrollment over the next several years. The system highlighted strategies such as dual enrollment, guaranteed admission pathways with community colleges, outreach to high school students, retention and advising efforts, and new degree models for working adults and military-connected students. Members raised questions about how campus targets are set, whether the May Board of Trustees discussion will address a systemwide enrollment framework, and how CSU will manage future deficits if projected out-year funding does not materialize. On core operations and facilities, CSU said it faces about $320 million in mandatory cost increases in 2026-27 and is pursuing shared services, procurement consolidation, campus administrative sharing, and program redesigns to reduce costs. CSU and the LAO emphasized the system’s large deferred maintenance backlog, estimated at $8.6 billion, and discussed whether CSU’s bond/debt capacity is sufficient to address it; CSU requested up to $1.1 billion for deferred maintenance, while the administration did not propose new funding. The committee also heard CSU’s annual Title IX and civil rights update: CSU said it has implemented 15 of 16 State Auditor recommendations, has dedicated Title IX coordinators at every campus, is using a systemwide case management dashboard, and is piloting centralized investigations at five campuses. Finally, on basic needs, the Governor maintained current funding levels for food assistance/basic needs, rapid rehousing, and mental health. CSU reported heavy use of food pantries, CalFresh support, emergency housing, and counseling services, while warning that federal changes to CalFresh and related funding could make it harder to serve students in need.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the current—what we just calculated has Alameda County as above already in that?
• Have we done any calculations or thought about the potential of decoupling or some kind of ramp?
• Have any preliminary calculations been done? Like how much would that cost?
• See, we haven't done any separate calculations yet, so I don't know if.
• Very interesting and fascinating.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a lengthy budget and policy discussion on child care, child welfare, and related early education issues, beginning with child care funding and slot utilization. Department of Social Services officials outlined the Governor’s proposed 2026-27 child care budget, including $6.8 billion for child care programs, an $11.5 million Prop. 64-funded disaster repair mini-grant program for licensed facilities affected by 2025 disasters, and projected reductions tied to federal CCDF formula changes and lower Prop. 64 revenues. DSS said the reductions could mean about 4,176 CCTR slots, but emphasized they were assessing how to absorb the cuts without disrupting children currently in care. The LAO supported aligning funding to lower revenues and asked for more detail on the disaster grant program. Senators pressed the department on why so many slots remain uncontracted or unfilled, why unspent funds revert to the General Fund, and whether more flexibility could move dollars from contracts to vouchers; DSS said delays are largely due to infrastructure, licensing, staffing, and enrollment ramp-up, and that it is working on readiness reviews, technical assistance, and possible reallocation of relinquished slots. The committee also discussed Emergency Child Care Bridge reallocations among counties and confirmed that no currently enrolled children would be disenrolled under the proposed slot reductions. A second panel focused on the state’s broader commitment to expand child care and reform reimbursement rates. DSS said California has nearly doubled child care funding in five years and increased monthly children served from about 294,100 in 2019-20 to more than 366,700 currently, while also advancing the single rate structure process through the alternative methodology and a joint labor-management committee report. Stanislaus County Office of Education described local shortages, especially for infant and toddler care, and argued that rate disparities between programs make it harder to sustain mixed delivery systems. Parent Voices California testified that the current system is confusing, unstable, and inequitable, with one speaker describing repeated paperwork burdens, waiting lists, and periods of homelessness while trying to maintain child care. The California Budget and Policy Center argued that only 16% of eligible children were enrolled in 2024, that Universal TK has drawn major resources into school-based care, and that providers remain paid far below the cost of care; it urged more revenue, faster rate reform, and expansion across the mixed delivery system. The LAO estimated that aligning CCTR adjustment factors for three-year-olds and children with disabilities with CSPP would cost $88 million to $131 million ongoing. Senators and staff also discussed the need for deadlines on automation and implementation of the single rate structure, with DSS and CDE noting that policy decisions, system changes, and collective bargaining issues are still being worked through. The committee then reviewed several child care trailer bill proposals. DSS proposed applying the 2026-27 COLA as an increase to cost-of-care-plus payments rather than as a traditional COLA, with $87.8 million General Fund initially proposed; DSS later acknowledged it had omitted CalWORKs Child Care and the Emergency Child Care Bridge from the calculation and said the amount would be revised upward. The LAO recommended making the COLA treatment uniform across child care and state preschool programs. DSS also proposed replacing the market rate survey with the federally approved alternative methodology survey on a triennial schedule, limiting temporary absences for licensed family child care homes to 20% of care hours in a month, defining excessive unexplained absences as more than 30 days in a 12-month period, and aligning family fee collection so contractors collect the fee without reducing the voucher value. The department said these changes are intended to bring state law into compliance with federal requirements and to better reflect current practice. Finally, the committee discussed the Early Childhood Policy Council, including a reappropriation of previously unused funds and a new reporting requirement under AB 563; members questioned staffing needs and whether existing contractor support could absorb the work, while DSS said the funds are used for stipends, facilitation, translation, and contract oversight and may still be needed as participation patterns change.

Transcript Highlights:

• rates and that buyers expected interest rates to decline.
• Obviously, we can control interest rates to a degree.
• And then we get into the premium impact calculation.
• So the reason I have an interest in it is because this is my patient population.
• And so in the interest of time, I will leave room for Representative Fleming.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:00:23 Kentucky Bankers Association 00:02:32 How to Read and Understand KRS 6.948 Health Mandate and Federal Cost Defrayal Impact Statements 00:25:40 Proposed Amendments to Kentucky's Essential Health Benefit-Benchmark Plan 00:50:18 Proposed Health Insurance Legislation for the 2026 Session 01:04:22 Reimbursement for Covered Benefits Delivered Through the Psychiatric Collaborative Care Model 01:01:46 Coverage of Eating or Feeding Disorders 01:18:47 Coverage of Hearing Loss 01:25:31, 958, all

Summary: The Interim Joint Committee on Banking and Insurance met for its first interim meeting, established a quorum, approved routine opening items, and welcomed a new committee assistant and a legislative intern. The committee first heard a Kentucky Bankers Association presentation from Tim Shank and John Cooper focused on the state’s housing shortage, which they described as affecting all 120 counties and especially low- and moderate-income and workforce housing. They urged support for a proposed $20 million banker-backed revolving fund, paired with tax credits, to finance new housing construction; they said the program would be flexible, could support alternatives such as manufactured housing, and would use below-market loans with tax credits vesting over five years only after units are completed. They also asked for extension of the historical tax credit carryforward from five to seven years and for continued support of new market tax credits, arguing that supply-chain delays make the longer period necessary for historic rehabilitation projects. The bankers also raised concerns about credit unions, arguing that because credit unions do not pay the same taxes as banks, they should not be allowed to acquire healthy state-chartered banks or hold state and local deposits. They cited the recent purchase of First State Bank of Middlesborough as an example, saying the transaction would reduce state, county, and city tax revenue and weaken local tax bases. In response to committee questions, the presenters said local regulations, zoning, parking, sidewalk, and utility easement issues can significantly delay housing projects, and they emphasized that state policy and infrastructure support are needed to help address affordability and development barriers. The committee then shifted to a Department of Insurance presentation by Commissioner Sharon Clark on how to read KRS 6.948 health mandate and federal cost defrayal impact statements. Clark explained that the mandate statements were created in 1998 so legislators would have actuarial estimates of how proposed health insurance mandates would affect administrative costs, premiums, and total costs, and she noted that later legislation added federal cost-defrayal analysis. She also reviewed the background of the Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefits framework and said the department’s statements are intended to help lawmakers make informed decisions on proposed health coverage mandates. No votes or formal actions were taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Joint Legislative Budget Committee staff must adjust the CSF per-pupil calculations to exclude the weighted
• Joint Legislative Budget Committee staff must adjust the CSF per-pupil calculations to exclude the weighted
• Adjust the CSF per-pupil calculations to exclude the weighted student count of any school district that
• But what I find interesting is in those trends from the Auditor General, since we started tracking the

Bills: HB2035, HB2041, HB2611, HB2860, HB4004, HB4049, SCR1032

Keywords: kinship care, child welfare, foster care, relative placement, child protection, child neglect, financial resources, behavioral health, Christian Science treatment, parental rights, group homes, children's rights, safety protocols, employee training, mental health, child safety, oversight, independent committee, transparency, accountability

Summary: The Senate Committee on Government considered only SCR 1032, along with a strike-everything amendment. The amendment would require school districts, subject to voter approval, to dedicate at least 60% of operational spending to teacher pay, with a phased-in increase starting in FY 2028 for districts below that threshold. It also would penalize noncompliant districts by requiring unexpended Classroom Site Fund monies to revert, making districts ineligible for those funds until back in compliance, and directing JLBC to exclude those districts from per-pupil calculations. The Superintendent of Public Instruction could grant limited waivers of the forfeiture provisions for up to one year, not more than two consecutive years for the same district. Supporters, including representatives of Heritage Action, the Goldwater Institute, and the Center for Arizona Policy, argued that Arizona has increased school funding substantially while teacher pay has remained flat in real terms, and said the measure would improve accountability and ensure more money reaches teachers rather than district administration. They cited Auditor General findings and prior voter-approved efforts such as the Classroom Site Fund and teacher pay initiatives as evidence that districts have not prioritized classroom spending as intended. A rural school coalition testified in opposition, saying the proposal would be difficult for small districts to meet because it could force cuts to other essential costs such as fuel, insurance, facilities, and other operating needs, and that the Auditor General’s classroom-spending categories may not accurately reflect actual teacher pay. One committee member also raised concerns that the measure could harm special education and other legally required student services. During discussion, the sponsor said charter schools were excluded because they are private businesses under the state’s framework, despite receiving public funds. The committee adopted the strike-everything amendment and then voted 4-3 to give SCR 1032, as amended, a do pass recommendation.

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 4540 by Paul ruling the unauthorized interest to occupancy sale, rental lease, advertisement or sale
• Leo Wilson relating to the interest in real property held or acquired or on behalf of certain foreign
• of certain other interests in the state of certain property in the Palo Pinto County allowed by the
• Veterans Affairs HB 4949 by Munoz relating to the calculation of the voter approval tax rate of certain
• The calculation of the voter approval tax rate in certain junior college districts for the Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• on investment, which is calculated by the number of jobs and economic outputs.
• Hyperscalers are interested in making investments within the next two years.
• Just because of the interest in the microgrid build-out for this region.
• But how does New Mexico attract similar interests?
• They are also interested in education programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um repository for two items of interest.
• Um start with the most interesting ones.
• And it is interesting.
• Um and and it is interesting. seen them. Um and and it is interesting.
• be more interested? be more interested?

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It is something that is calculated annually and paid to the hospitals.
• It's calculated every year.
• It's very interesting to me.
• It's very interesting to me.
• I believe it’s driven by our state planning calculations.

Summary: The subcommittee met to review Department of Human Services hospital payments in Arkansas Medicaid, with DHS Secretary Janet Mann and Deputy Secretary Misty Eubanks presenting first, followed by Arkansas Hospital Association Executive Vice President Jody Ann Tritt and a brief comment from Arkansas Children’s. DHS outlined the main hospital payment streams: fee-for-service per diem payments, upper payment limit (UPL) supplemental payments, cost settlements, and smaller payments such as graduate medical education and disproportionate share hospital funds. Members asked for plain-language explanations of cost settlements, why per diem rates vary by hospital type, and why UPL applies to private hospitals. DHS said cost settlements and UPL are mechanisms to help offset Medicaid underpayment, with SFY 2025 hospital payments totaling hundreds of millions of dollars and no general revenue used for supplemental payments beyond the state share funded through hospital assessments and related financing structures. Committee members focused heavily on whether Arkansas hospitals are adequately reimbursed and why rural hospitals struggle. Tritt explained that critical access hospitals, rural emergency hospitals, PPS hospitals, and specialty hospitals operate under different federal and state rules, and said lower per diem rates for some facilities help with cash flow and later cost settlement adjustments. She said Arkansas hospitals are under financial strain, citing a negative patient services margin statewide and noting that Medicaid, Medicare, and commercial payers all contribute to the problem. She also said the association had just authorized a statewide survey of hospital finances and costs, which she expected would take about a year to complete. A major theme was commercial insurance reimbursement. Tritt argued Arkansas hospitals are paid far less than hospitals in neighboring states even though premiums are similar, and said administrative burdens, prior authorizations, and denials add to the problem. She said hospitals receive about 52 to 53 cents on the dollar for Medicaid costs without UPL and about 78 cents with UPL, still below cost. Members also discussed Medicare wage index issues, Medicare Advantage, and whether hospitals could use technology or alternative arrangements to improve finances. No votes were taken on the hospital presentation. At the end of the meeting, DHS provided a brief update on Living Choices and assisted living reimbursement. Officials said one assisted living facility, Pillars of the Community in Crossett, had announced closure, with nine waiver clients being transitioned to other settings. DHS said the current cost reporting period was underway and that a new rate study could be ready for review before the end of the fiscal year if reports were submitted on time. Members also asked about the broader waiver plan, and DHS said the next waiver iteration would likely be brought back to the committee in the summer.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have no interest in denying quorum or using other parliamentary tactics.
• Minnesota calculates quorum.
• We're not really interested in this kind of a waste of time in January.
• I mean, I think we're certainly interested in oversight.
• We have no interest in anybody ripping off Minnesota state government.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: Minnesota House DFL leaders held a press conference at the start of the 2025 session to argue that the election produced a tied House and that neither party has a majority. They said Minnesota law requires 68 members for a quorum, rejected the Republican view that 67 members would be enough to organize the House, and said Democrats would use parliamentary tools, including denial of quorum, if Republicans refused a power-sharing agreement. They framed their position as preserving the will of voters and called the Republican approach an illegitimate power grab. A major topic was the disputed House seat involving Brad Tabke/Tabkey and the related District 40B residency issue involving Curtis Johnson. Democrats said court testimony showed Tabke won and that overturning the result would disenfranchise thousands of voters, while Republicans were accused of trying to use a temporary advantage to force a special election. On the residency case, Democrats said they had a vetting process, disagreed with the trial court’s ruling, and noted Johnson chose not to appeal. They said they expect David Gottfried to win the upcoming special election on January 28 and that a certificate could issue by February 3. The leaders also discussed how a power-sharing arrangement could work if the House remains tied: committee chairs would be split 50-50, each side could set agendas, and speakership duties could alternate daily. They said this would allow hearings on issues such as fraud oversight, the budget, energy, education, the Social Security tax, the nuclear moratorium, and immigration-related proposals, though they described some Republican priorities as nonstarters. No formal votes were taken, and the event ended with Democrats saying they were still negotiating and hoped to reach an agreement before session begins.

Transcript Highlights:

• But it was only as to the interest, I think. to do their thing, right? And then they sent it back.
• But it was only as to the interest, I think. ...asking for a revision in the calculation of that money
• , but it was only as to the interest, I think.
• calculation.
• That is really what is going to help them be successful and curious enough to have that interest when

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Rules Committee first approved several governor’s appointments not required to appear, including Arthur Krantz to the Public Employment Relations Board and Christopher Ferguson, Brian Haynes, Anna Marie de Mars, and Ronald Fiore to the Student Aid and Student Athletic commissions. The committee also approved references of bills to committees by a 5-0 vote. It then heard testimony from Julia Montgomery, nominated as General Counsel to the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, who described her long career serving agricultural workers and said the ALRB’s mission is to protect workers’ rights, support fair bargaining, and ensure access to information and resources. Questions to Montgomery focused on card-check unionization procedures, signature authenticity, outreach to farmworkers, and enforcement of make-whole orders. Senator Grove raised concerns about workers being pressured or not knowing what they signed, while Montgomery said objections and unfair labor practice charges can be filed and investigated, though the office does not independently verify signatures unless there is an allegation. Senator Reyes pressed on delays in collecting make-whole awards, including the Tri-Fanucchi case; Montgomery said appeals, bankruptcies, and employer closures often delay relief, but the agency seeks settlements and enforcement when possible. The committee voted 3-2 to advance Montgomery’s appointment to the full Senate. The committee then considered three State Board of Education nominees: Cynthia Glover Woods, Brenda Lewis, and Gabriela Orozco Gonzalez. In their testimony, all three emphasized long careers in education, support for students and teachers, and the importance of early learning, community schools, professional development, and aligning instructional materials with standards. Members questioned them about math achievement, the 2023 mathematics framework and Algebra I access, the state’s low national rankings, transitional kindergarten access, and a proposed change to education governance. The nominees said they support flexibility for students ready for Algebra I, believe recent instructional materials and professional learning will help improve outcomes, and had not been involved in governance-structure discussions. Public witnesses from school and child-serving organizations spoke in strong support. The committee then advanced Glover Woods and Gonzalez on 3-1 votes and Lewis on a 4-1 vote for full Senate confirmation.

Transcript Highlights:

• How is that calculated, if you will? I'm just trying to get a sense of that.
• It's 33% of whatever the calculated parent contribution is from the FAFSA. Okay. Yeah.
• Interesting. All right. Yeah, one follow-up question for Dr. Patel.
• There used to be a provision that you could calculate in how much you're paying for siblings' tuition
• , and now... ...you could calculate in how much you're paying for siblings' tuition, and now, correct

Summary: The subcommittee on Education Finance heard an overview of the governor’s budget proposals and higher education financial aid trends, with a major focus on the Middle Class Scholarship (MCS), Cal Grant spending, and the effects of recent federal student aid changes. The Department of Finance said the budget would fully fund Cal Grant at projected levels and reduce MCS coverage from 35% to 17.5% of unmet need in 2026-27, while the Legislative Analyst’s Office supported considering the reduction as a cost-saving measure given out-year deficits. UC and CSU representatives opposed the cut, saying MCS is important to affordability and debt-free degree goals; they estimated average awards would fall substantially and that campuses do not have funds to backfill the loss. The Student Aid Commission said the proposal would reduce aid but simplify administration, and members questioned how lower awards would affect students, borrowing, and work-study options. No vote was taken, and the issue was held open for possible future action. The committee then discussed federal changes to student loans and Pell Grant policy under H.R. 1, including caps on Parent PLUS loans, elimination of Grad PLUS loans, and new proration rules for federal direct loans based on enrollment intensity. The LAO said these changes would likely push some borrowers into the private market, especially graduate and professional students and some parents of students at private institutions. CSU said the changes would affect thousands of graduate and part-time students and could reduce access by about $97 million in loan availability for part-time borrowers, while UC said the new definitions of professional degrees were too restrictive and would reduce access for nursing, teaching, law, dentistry, and other programs. Community colleges said they use relatively little federal loan aid but are monitoring Workforce Pell. Members raised concerns about workforce impacts, social mobility, and whether the state should consider alternative loan programs or other ways to reduce student costs. This issue was also held open. In the segment financial aid update, the LAO reported Cal Grant spending is projected to rise to about $3.2 billion in 2026-27, driven by more recipients and higher awards tied to UC and CSU tuition increases, while CSAC said FAFSA and CADAA applications are up significantly year over year. CSU, community colleges, and UC described their aid packaging and rising aid totals, with CSU reporting over $5.5 billion in aid to 381,000 students, community colleges reporting over $4.3 billion to more than 920,000 students, and UC reporting $3.17 billion in grant aid to undergraduates. Members asked about Cal Grant reform, application trends, and long-term outcomes; UC and community colleges pointed to alumni and wage dashboards, and the LAO noted the state’s Cradle to Career data effort. The committee then took public comment, including testimony on library funding and other education-related priorities, and concluded by holding the issues open without formal action.

Transcript Highlights:

• If we were to, about potential issues surrounding waiving interest from special fund loans.
• For rough costs, we calculated an amount in the low $20 millions, $20 million to $23 million.
• I can talk about how it's calculated if that would be helpful.
• A listing of the top 10 law schools that provide public interest attorneys nationally.
• public interest, the University of California provides the top three of those schools. ...public interest

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard May Revision proposals covering higher education, including the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the University of California, California Community Colleges, the California Student Aid Commission, UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and trailer bill reporting changes. For the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the administration proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan taken to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to adjust for a pending legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about an interest-free loan under Proposition 26. Senators asked about whether the $10 million would cover the litigation and about the estimated $245,000 in interest savings. For UC, the May Revision maintained the Governor’s ongoing support and included budget language requiring campuses to grow by 2,968 California undergraduates in 2026-27. UC also sought $1.5 million in one-time General Fund support for the First Star foster youth program. UC described strong outcomes for the UCLA program, while the LAO recommended rejecting the new spending because UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and because the need for new state funding was not clear. Senators debated whether the proposal duplicated existing services and discussed the program’s reported college-going and completion rates. The committee also heard a request for $1 million ongoing General Fund for UC College of the Law, San Francisco, to maintain campus safety services; the college described its shared-campus model and public-interest mission, while the LAO noted the college was also raising tuition and that the proposal would maintain, rather than expand, current security spending. The committee then reviewed community college proposals. Finance outlined a larger May Revision package centered on a 4.31% SCFF COLA, enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, a one-time Adult Learner Demonstration Project allocation, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time items. The Chancellor’s Office supported the package but asked for more enrollment growth funding, a higher growth rate, and additional policy changes. The LAO recommended at least funding the statutory 2.87% COLA, then considering whether to redirect remaining funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time priorities; it recommended rejecting the Adult Learner Demonstration Project. Senators questioned the use of the discretionary COLA to cover paid pregnancy disability leave, the impact on hold harmless and basic aid districts, and whether the state should instead create a separate categorical. The Chancellor’s Office and Finance said the COLA approach was intended to provide flexibility, though Finance said it was open to further discussion about districts that would not receive direct funding. For student aid, Finance described May Revision changes to Cal Grant and the Middle Class Scholarship, including a one-time reduction tied to lower estimated costs and a later true-up, as well as proposals for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. CSAC supported the financial aid investments but urged more time and clearer implementation planning for Workforce Pell, noting the need for state approval processes, data linkages, and likely ongoing administrative workload. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding and cautioned that the Workforce Pell trailer bill and one-time funding were premature given the new federal rules and unclear workload. Senators also raised concerns about the Middle Class Scholarship reduction, the need to support students facing higher living costs, and the decline in CADA/DREAM Act applications, with CSAC saying the drop did not reflect reduced need and that outreach should be strengthened. The final item was a set of technical trailer bill changes to shift some UC, CSU, and community college reporting from annual to biennial and consolidate reports; Finance said there were no programmatic changes.