Transcript Highlights:

• And so it has grown from a cost of $1.2 billion in state fiscal year 20 to $1.6 billion in fiscal year
• In fiscal year 2024, and is projected to reach $2 billion by 2027.
• And so if you think about the fact that between state fiscal year 2020 and state fiscal year 2024, the
• In state fiscal year 24, MassHealth spent $71 million on overtime.
• In state fiscal year 24, MassHealth spent $71 million on overtime.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee met with MassHealth LTSS Chief Leslie Darcy to review the Personal Care Attendant (PCA) program and the legislative work group focused on its long-term sustainability and cost containment. Darcy and Charlie described the work group’s five meetings and three consensus recommendations: enforce the 66-hour overtime cap, address fraudulent activity in the PCA program, and eliminate MassHealth handling of PCA paperwork/administrative work for members without a live-in exemption because those members are subject to EVV. They explained EVV as an electronic visit verification system replacing paper timesheets, and noted the rollout is expected to be completed this fall. The group estimated about $7 million in savings from the consensus recommendations and agreed to continue meeting through June to consider additional ideas. Darcy presented data showing the PCA program served about 56,000 members in state fiscal year 2024 and has grown from $1.2 billion in FY20 to $1.6 billion in FY24, with projections near $2 billion by 2027. She said much of the growth is driven by wage increases and older adults using more services, and compared PCA costs with other LTSS programs. The discussion also covered overtime spending, the role of federal financial participation, and how Massachusetts’ PCA program differs from other states because it has no hard caps on hours or activities. Several members emphasized the program’s value for independent living and community participation, while also acknowledging the need to control growth without undermining services. Members asked about undocumented immigrants and MassHealth funding, and Darcy explained that some eligibility categories are state-funded only and do not receive federal matching funds. Another member asked about workforce recruitment and wage pressures; Darcy said recent collective bargaining agreements raised PCA wages, with some workers eventually reaching $25 per hour and the entry wage reaching $20. The group also discussed whether IADL hours are disproportionately high compared with ADL needs, and reviewed data suggesting potential savings if IADL hours were limited relative to ADL hours, though no consensus recommendation was made on that point. The meeting ended with approval of the prior minutes by roll call vote, an update that the next health equity informational hearing is scheduled for May 19, and a motion to adjourn carried unanimously.

Transcript Highlights:

• the fiscal note we now have received the fiscal<00:02:13.360> note<00:02:13.560> in<00:
• That was part of the fiscal note, and we will adjust for that.
• We just got the fiscal note, right?
• We just got the fiscal note, right?
• So I assume now we'll get a fiscal note requested.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• like House Fiscal to outline the fiscal impacts of the bill.
• House fiscal. >> Um, thank you, Mr.
• already stated that there's no fiscal already stated that there's no fiscal impact,<00:05:18.560
• outline the fiscal impacts of the bill. outline the fiscal impacts of the bill.
• House<00:05:24.160> fiscal. House fiscal. House fiscal.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• c> also have a fiscal note on this a also have a fiscal note on this a revised<00:03:50.400> fiscal
• > be<00:08:39.880> talking the fiscal notes coming I'll be talking the fiscal notes coming
• So let's get into the fiscal note. Did the fiscal note come around? We have them? Okay.
• c> happens the fiscal note outlines what happens the fiscal note outlines what happens when<01:05
• The fiscal note is related to the local level.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up HB 651, a school-funding bill that would raise the base cost of an adequate education and increase differentiated aid for students in poverty, English language learners, and special education. The chair opened with housekeeping notices about parking and eating in committee spaces, and noted a revised fiscal note would be distributed. Representative David Luneau presented the bill as part of a broader package of public school funding measures, explaining that HB 651 builds on HB 550 and is intended to respond to court rulings and the ongoing school-funding litigation by adjusting both the base adequacy amount and equity-based funding factors. Luneau said the bill would raise the state’s adequacy grant from about $4,100 to $7,351 per student and increase differentiated aid, while also updating statutory language so future recalculations include the court-identified resource elements. He argued the measure is about fairness and shifting more of the burden from local property taxpayers to the state, not about increasing overall education spending. He reviewed fiscal-note figures indicating the bill would add roughly $576 million to the state share of school funding, bringing the total state share to about $1.65 billion, and said the note also mentions possible effects on charter schools and vouchers. Committee members asked about the evidence supporting higher costs for low-income and English learner students, how long ESL funding should continue, why free-and-reduced-lunch aid remains higher than special education aid, whether the formula is based on enrollment or average daily membership, and whether the bill is truly equitable across districts of different sizes and needs. Luneau and later witness Zach Shen of the New Hampshire School Funding Fairness Project said the bill is supported by research and court findings, that the current formula relies heavily on local property taxes, and that shifting more funding to the state would reduce property-tax pressure and help address disparities among districts. Shen also cited broad public support for the related HB 550 testimony and said HB 651 is intended as a step toward a more equitable funding system. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• year 25 and fiscal year 26 to these 13 projects.
• Uh noted here are the three country.
• Just as a note again, I'll brag on our folks.
• In fiscal year 24, we brought in $1.4 million, and in fiscal year 25, preliminarily, at the early beginning
• > 25 million and in fiscal year 25 million and in fiscal year 25 preliminarily<00:45:35.760> this

Keywords: 00:01 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:47 Approval of Minutes 01:07 Airport Projects 12:17 Riverport Projects 38:27 Electric Vehicle Charging Program 54:10 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Transportation met on July 15, 2025, approved the June 4 minutes, and heard updates on aviation and riverport funding programs. Commissioner Mark Carter of the Kentucky Department of Aviation reported on the $200,000 grants for general aviation airports included in House Bill 1, saying the money is being used mainly for hangar projects, fuel trucks, parking lot resurfacing, airport equipment, crew cars, and public education efforts. He said about 25 hangar-related projects were reported, with an estimated 60 T-hangars and four or five box hangars supported, and noted that the grants are often used to match federal funds. He also said the state’s jet fuel tax revenue generates about $23 million annually, up from about $19 million in 2021, and that most airports are now compliant with the ADS-B/VOR-related reporting system required in budget language, which has improved reported operations and may help airports qualify for FAA grants. Members asked about the pace of airport projects, the limited number of contractors for hangar construction, and whether airports could finance hangars themselves. Carter said timing has generally been good, though federal projects have slowed somewhat and contractor capacity remains a challenge, and he said there is no statute preventing airports from financing part or all of a hangar project. Questions also focused on the long-term need for hangars and the effect of the jet fuel cap, with Carter saying general aviation airports still have significant hangar demand and rely on state assistance because hangars are a key revenue source. Jeremy Edgeworth of the Transportation Cabinet and Brian Wright of the Kentucky Association of Riverports then reviewed riverport projects funded through House Bill 265 and House Bill 1. Edgeworth said the cabinet’s riverport grant program awarded $500,000 in each of fiscal years 2025 and 2026 for 13 projects under an 80/20 match, and that House Bill 1 provided $7.5 million per year for public riverports with no local match. He described completed or underway projects at multiple ports, including equipment replacements, dock and road repairs, material handling upgrades, mooring cell rehabilitation, and a waterline loop at Owensboro. He said $12.6 million of the KPRCM funds had been awarded across 20 projects, with about $2.4 million still to be awarded later in the fall. Wright said the riverport investments are helping ports replace aging assets, expand capacity, and match federal dollars, but he also said the statewide capital need remains large, with the current list of top projects already in the $90 million range and longer-term needs still estimated at $60 million to $90 million. Members asked about timelines and future needs, and Edgeworth said many of the larger projects will take two to five years because of permitting and coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• a blank appropriation month<00:02:26.920> amount<00:02:27.280> for<00:02:28.040> fiscal
• years 26 and 27 month amount for fiscal years 26 and 27 questions<00:02:31.120> or questions
• <00:04:06.760> to<00:04:07.760> pass<00:04:07.959> unamended<00:04:08.439> note
• <00:04:08.599> in<00:04:08.720> the 1149 is to pass unamended note in the 1149 is to
• pass unamended note in the committee<00:04:09.159> report<00:04:09.760> uh<00:04:10.200

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Ways and Means and Judiciary committee met in decision-making mode and took up a long list of measures, mostly recommending passage with or without amendments. Early actions included S.B. 414, which was amended to blank the appropriation, draw funds from the major disaster fund, and change the effective date to 2050, and S.B. 223, which would require fire breaks in hazardous fire areas and create or expand wildland fire prevention and protection programs with blank appropriations for FY 2026 and 2027. The committee also advanced S.B. 1009 on state reserve parking space enforcement, S.B. 1149 on reported hate crime definitions and reporting, S.B. 402 on mooring-line requirements for certain vessels, S.B. 1441 on the Oahu regional health care system transfer, S.B. 1442 on child and adolescent mental health responsibilities, S.B. 1478 on harbor evacuation orders, and S.B. 493 on written notice for emotional support animal sales or verifications. Members generally raised little opposition, and most measures were adopted without reservations. Some bills drew brief discussion or committee-report notes, including S.B. 1149, which referenced a Hawaii Civil Rights Commission report encouraging policy-level hate crime data reporting, and S.B. 1442, which was amended with a far-future effective date and a committee-report note about whether mental health services should be expressly subject to funding. S.B. 1441 was substantially revised to require a memorandum of agreement between the Oahu Regional Health Care System and the Department of Health by November 30, 2025, with patient care to begin by December 31, 2025, and a report to the legislature before the 2026 session. The committee also considered several finance and energy-related measures. S.B. 897 on the wildfire liability trust fund prompted questions about whether costs would be passed to consumers; the response was that the proposal contemplated cost sharing and that some amounts were still blank. S.B. 1395 and S.B. 1396 were amended to remove special-fund structures, direct revenues into the general fund, and require the governor to include equivalent amounts in the executive budget for climate-related projects. S.B. 501 was amended to expand step-in agreement provisions for future PPAs and establish a fund outside the State Treasury, and S.B. 1589 was amended so private donations to the stadium authority would go into the NID special fund for stadium infrastructure and sod, with members discussing accountability and the source of stadium-related consultant spending. The committee adopted the recommendations on all measures considered, with some members noting reservations on a few bills, and one item, S.B. 1418, was deferred.

Transcript Highlights:

• I make notes. I'm an old judge. I make notes. You're recognized.
• In a given fiscal year, say a fiscal year ending in June of 2024, there were 3.6 million filings statewide
• Cases cross over fiscal years, but in a given fiscal year, we look at the number of filings and we look
• And I made a little note in my notes here: the builders of Universal's Epic Universe could take some
• And I'm taking notes on your questions.

Summary: The committee first heard an update from the Florida Department of Corrections on the proposed Lake Correctional Institution mental health project in Clermont. Tim Fitzgerald explained the project’s history, including the 2016 Disability Rights Florida litigation, the 2018 consent decree, and the original plan for a 550-bed inpatient mental health facility. He said inflation and design changes pushed the project above the bond amount, leading the department to shift to a “continuum of care” alternative with 572 beds total: 92 inpatient beds and 480 residential treatment beds in three special housing units. Fitzgerald said the project is currently paused pending House concurrence, while the Senate has already agreed to the alternate plan, and noted the bond balance, prior expenditures, and the need to spend down the tax-exempt bond by August 2026. Members questioned how the new plan differs from the original facility, whether it satisfies the consent decree, and what caused the cost increases. Fitzgerald said the department believes it has already met the consent decree through systemwide improvements to housing, staffing, programming, and out-of-cell time, though he said he would confirm the court documentation. He also said the original scope grew from 275,000 to 350,000 square feet as treatment, nursing, security, and programming needs were refined, and that inflation, fees, permitting, and contingencies contributed to the higher cost. Several members asked for follow-up information on Senate approval, consent decree documentation, and the project’s impact on crisis-stabilization capacity. The committee then received a joint court-system presentation from State Courts Administrator Eric McClure and Clerks Corporation Executive Director Jason Welty on caseload trends, case tracking, and staffing. McClure described statewide filing trends, the use of weighted caseload studies to certify judicial need, and recent Supreme Court rule changes aimed at active civil case management, including differentiated case tracks, stricter deadlines, and proportional discovery. He said the latest workload study led the Supreme Court to certify a need for 23 circuit judges and 25 county judges. Welty reviewed clerk workload trends, the statewide case maintenance and CCIS systems, and declining clerk FTE despite rising case volumes, and said clerks are seeking additional funding for injunctions, Baker Act/Marchman Act/sexually violent predator work, and juror management. In questions, members pressed both presenters on data quality, case-weight calculations, filing fees, and whether current resources are enough to reduce delays. McClure clarified that the workload weights are based on judge time studies and that a capital murder case averaged 3,177 minutes, while other examples such as auto negligence and dissolution cases were much lower. Welty said the Legislature could help by increasing funding or potentially revisiting filing fees, and noted that many clerk services are unfunded or underfunded, especially indigent and protective filings. The chair and members also raised concerns about backlog, inconsistent case reporting across circuits, and enforcement of judicial time standards; McClure said there is no direct sanction in the rules, and compliance is largely managed through chief judges and the Supreme Court. The meeting ended with no votes taken and adjournment by motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• I didn't note earlier, but one of the areas in which the state will face increased fiscal costs is if
• It maintains the 50% federal cost share for federal fiscal year 2026.
• cost share for federal fiscal year 2028.
• For federal fiscal years 2029 and thereafter, states will use the error rate from the third fiscal year
• Investments now will minimize our future fiscal liability from increased state benefit cost.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held its fifth hearing of the year to examine the newly enacted federal H.R. 1 and its effects on California. Members and the chair described the law as a major threat to state health, food, education, and climate programs, and emphasized that California would not be able to fully backfill the federal cuts. Several members also highlighted the bill’s tax provisions, including temporary deductions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, while warning that the largest benefits flow to higher-income taxpayers and that major cuts to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and clean-energy incentives are delayed or phased in over time. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance presented detailed overviews of the bill’s likely impacts and implementation timelines. They identified the main affected areas as health care coverage and financing, food assistance, higher education, personal income taxes, and clean-energy/electric-vehicle credits. They explained that H.R. 1 limits provider taxes used to finance Medi-Cal, adds work and redetermination requirements, restricts CalFresh eligibility and increases state costs, changes student loan and Pell Grant rules, extends and modifies federal tax provisions, and phases out many clean-energy credits. Finance also noted major rescissions of Inflation Reduction Act funds, new border and immigration enforcement spending, and the possibility of PAYGO sequestration if Congress does not act to offset the deficit increase. During member questions, the committee focused on likely enrollment losses, administrative burdens, and fiscal exposure for the state and counties. Witnesses said many details still depend on federal guidance, but they estimated significant impacts on Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and graduate/professional student borrowing, and noted that California’s high CalFresh error rate could increase state costs. UC testified that the elimination of Graduate PLUS loans would affect thousands of professional students, especially in health, law, and other high-cost programs. Members asked for follow-up data on county, health, and tax impacts, and staff agreed to provide additional tables and estimates as implementation guidance becomes clearer. Public commenters from counties, early childhood advocates, health coalitions, disability rights groups, immigrant-rights organizations, and other stakeholders urged the Legislature to mitigate the law’s effects. They warned of higher county costs, reduced access to health care and food assistance, increased administrative burdens, and harm to children, immigrants, people with disabilities, and low-income families. Several urged new state revenue solutions and stronger protections for Medi-Cal, CalFresh, child care, and home- and community-based services. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with a commitment to continue monitoring federal guidance and to work on state responses in the budget process.

Transcript Highlights:

• It began increasing again in fiscal year 2020. 2023 and is projected to continue increasing through fiscal
• Former referrals began increasing again in fiscal year 2022 and stabilized in fiscal year 2021. 2023
• Decreased from approximately 1,100 in fiscal year 2018 to a low of 650. in fiscal year 2023.
• Fiscal Year 2027.
• decrease to 165 in fiscal year 2019.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Our office has downsized a little bit from this fiscal year, or during this fiscal year, we had three
• This slide gives a visual representation of the funding fiscal year's spending and the fiscal year ending
• This slide gives a visual representation of the funding fiscal year's spending and the fiscal year's
• We are running a little below that, 159 to be exact, last fiscal year.
• I'll also note That we've reduced our supervisor to FTE count to 11%.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, I believe there is a fiscal note. Maybe we could hear from our fiscal analyst.
• Just to speak to the fiscal note that we have.
• Maybe I believe there is a fiscal note.
• This is on the fiscal note that we have.
• fiscal note shows 2.5 you today, but the fiscal note shows 2.5 FTEs<00:57:39.480> needed<00:57

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Before we begin, I have a few housekeeping notes to cover.
• The fiscal impact is estimated to have no state cost and has no opposition.
• The committee analysis highlights there is no fiscal cost to the state.
• As the analysis notes, there is no fiscal effect, and I certainly ask for an aye vote on behalf of Senator
• As the analysis notes, the bill has minor and observable costs.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and began by approving a large consent calendar of bills on two unanimous-support motions. The committee then heard a series of individual bills, with authors and sponsors generally describing low or absorbable state costs and asking for aye votes. Topics included AI/digital safety education for students (AB 1792), hepatitis C treatment access (AB 1843), rent-now-pay-later consumer protections (AB 2350), retirement information for community college faculty (AB 2417), cannabis regulation changes including tribal commerce, drive-through sales, and beverage labeling (AB 2506, AB 2697, AB 2532), emergency equipment training for law enforcement volunteers (AB 1913), cannery law modernization (AB 2706), child care planning in local governments (AB 1914), EV charger permitting fees (AB 1820), election-record notice requirements (AB 1664), nursing home discharge notices (AB 2135), a San Diego energization-delay pilot (AB 2518), mental health training for school coaches (AB 1665), and education governance and oversight changes (AB 2117). Several bills were described as committee or sponsor measures with technical or clarifying changes, including AB 2780, AB 2615, AB 2121, and AB 2771. Testimony was largely supportive, often from sponsor groups, industry representatives, labor, or advocacy organizations. Notable support included TechNet for AB 1792, the California State Sheriffs’ Association for AB 1913, California Dairies and food manufacturers for AB 2706, the Low Income Investment Fund for AB 1914, EV and environmental groups for AB 1820, the Attorney General’s Office for AB 1664, long-term care ombudsman advocates for AB 2135, and the California State Association of Psychiatrists for the cannabis and mental-health-related bills. Some bills drew limited opposition or “opposed unless amended” positions, including AB 2350, AB 1820, and AB 2506, while AB 2697 and AB 2532 were presented as efforts to support the legal cannabis market and consumer safety. The committee also heard a presentation-only item, AB 2541, creating a lowrider specialty license plate, which drew enthusiastic bipartisan comments and co-author requests from members. Most bills were reported out with due pass recommendations, many on roll call and several with specific members not voting or voting no. AB 1664 was reported out as due pass as amended and placed on call before later being moved out on a B roll call. AB 2350 and AB 1914 were also later reported out from call on B roll calls, with AB 1914 noted as passing despite some Republican no votes. The suspense calendar was then deemed approved without individual action, and the meeting concluded after a brief public comment period in which members of the public voiced positions on unrelated bills, including support for AB 2497, AB 1729, AB 2189, AB 1575, AB 2170, and opposition to AB 1603, AB 2447, AB 2411, AB 2492, and AB 1952.

Transcript Highlights:

• They also noted there was a highly engaged leadership team.
• So they also noted limited access to complete and accurate service recipient claims.
• So they also noted a limited access to complete and accurate service recipient claims.
• It was noted that's in the new contract.
• And I noted in your slide on 12, you have now a January 2025 date.

Summary: The subcommittee heard two Department of Children and Families implementation updates on measures passed in prior sessions. First, DCF reviewed House Bill 633, which increased oversight of behavioral health managing entities through biennial independent audits, standardized claims-based reporting, and new monthly outcome dashboards. The department said it had awarded the inaugural audit to Ernst & Young, found no significant waste, fraud, or abuse, but identified process risks involving financial controls, claims validation, data access, and system access controls. DCF also described its transition to standardized behavioral health coding and said the new public dashboard of 11 measures is posted on its website, though members asked for easier access and for hard copies of the audit report. Members asked about how the department distinguishes Medicaid-covered services from department-funded services, how duplicate payment risks are being addressed, and whether the new reporting and audit requirements would improve oversight without disrupting services. DCF said it is the payer of last resort for uninsured or underinsured individuals, that some overlap with Medicaid is expected because Medicaid does not cover all behavioral health services, and that new claims edits and cross-checks are being built into the system. The department also said it had not found significant negative feedback from providers and that the new requirements are intended to improve transparency and accountability. DCF then updated the committee on Senate Bill 7012, covering human trafficking data collection, domestic violence center certification, limited background-screening exemptions, expanded recruitment for child welfare staff, subcontractor liability protections, a four-year treatment foster care pilot, case management efficiency recommendations, and a statewide study of residential bed capacity for child victims of commercial sexual exploitation. The department said several items are already complete or underway, including limited exemptions in the screening clearinghouse, while others are in procurement or rulemaking. It identified Circuits 4 and 12 as the treatment foster care pilot sites and said the pilot will launch in January 2026. Members questioned recruitment metrics, pilot timing, and report deadlines; the department said final reports are expected by January and that some dates were flexible because of procurement and implementation timelines. The meeting ended after the presentations and questions, and the subcommittee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• note out of this bill.
• note out of this bill.
• changes have no fiscal impact. changes have no fiscal impact. Um,<00:05:03.199> Mr.
• and I'll note those on the spreadsheet. and I'll note those on the spreadsheet.
• I'll note lines 594 and 595.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You'll also note that we have filed a task force that's also aviation and aeronautics centric.
• address that it's very important to address that you'll<00:02:56.360> also<00:02:57.000> note
• note.
• It says the fiscal note is back and it says no impact.
• That will probably change a little bit when we get the fiscal impact on the committee substitute.

Keywords: Roll Call 00:20 Approval of Minutes 01:00 SB 87 Discussion 01:23 SB 87 Vote 09:45, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the minutes from the February 12 meeting, and then took up its only agenda item, Senate Bill 87. A committee substitute was adopted before testimony. Senator Shelley Funke Frommeyer presented the bill with representatives from CVG, describing it as an efficiency measure for Kentucky’s aviation sector. The bill’s main provisions would streamline procurement rules for Kentucky’s three largest commercial airports by tying the acquisition threshold to the FAA’s simplified acquisition threshold, which adjusts with inflation. Testimony also explained that the bill directs the Council on Postsecondary Education and the Transportation Cabinet to study workforce needs in aviation, especially the shortage of air traffic controllers, and to examine ways Kentucky postsecondary institutions could help create a path to additional training and possibly a second site for final credentialing. Committee members and the Senate President spoke in support of the bill’s workforce and aviation goals. The President said CPE should be doing this kind of planning without needing extra funding, and noted the bill fits CPE’s coordinating role. The chair announced the fiscal note on the underlying bill showed no impact, though it may change with the substitute. The committee then voted to report Senate Bill 87 favorably with the committee substitute attached, and adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh there is no fiscal impact uh to this bill.
• Uh there is no fiscal impact to this bill.
• Uh there is no fiscal impact to this bill.
• Uh there is no fiscal impact to this bill.
• Uh the no fiscal impact uh to this bill.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:07 Attendance Roll Call: 00:14 SB 68 Discussion 01:21 SB 68 Vote 04:40 SB 20 Discussion 05:34 SB 20 Vote 08:12 Adjournment: 09:15, 958, all

Summary: The Senate State and Local Government Committee met and first took up Senate Bill 68, sponsored by Senator Maize Bledsoe. The bill would give the Kentucky Horse Park authority to bar or restrict participation by individuals sanctioned by the U.S. Center for SafeSport, with supporters saying it would help protect young athletes, adult athletes, and visitors at the multi-use state facility. Testimony from the Horse Park and the U.S. Equestrian Federation emphasized that the measure would have no fiscal impact and would be implemented through existing horse mounted police operations, without actively checking every visitor against the sanction list. The committee then considered Senate Bill 20, sponsored by Senator Maiden and presented with the Kentucky League of Cities. The bill would amend the city training incentive program statute to let cities set different incentive amounts for appointed and elected officials and remove the current statutory minimum and maximum amounts, giving local governments more discretion by ordinance. Senator Maiden said the measure is intended to encourage training for city officials and improve local government operations, and noted it had passed the Senate unanimously the previous year in similar form. Both bills were approved by the committee without opposition. Senate Bill 68 passed 10-0 with favorable expression, and Senate Bill 20 passed 9-0 with favorable expression. During the vote on Senate Bill 20, Senator Elkins explained his aye vote, saying he appreciated that the bill used permissive language and did not create an unfunded mandate. The committee then moved toward adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Note in your works and it has results.
• fiscal year 25.
• Second, I would note, as it was noted in part of the presentation, these are providers operating all
• :32.960> the as as it was noted in part of the as as it was noted in part of the presentation,
• Um that would be fiscal year 2027.

Bills: HF3425, HF3424, HF1385

Keywords: supportive housing, grants, housing assistance, funding, Minnesota Statutes, eviction, rent, nonpayment of rent, landlord-tenant, residential tenant, notice to quit, unlawful detainer, housing, lease violation, late fees, rental assistance, legal aid, tenant rights, Minnesota Statutes 504B.321, pre-eviction notice

Transcript Highlights:

• by 10 million barrels for fiscal year 2026.
• I don't remember off the top of my head what the fiscal impact was.
• That might be in the current fiscal year, not the coming budget year.
• Your fiscal analysts will help.
• Quick note and a big thanks to the Vice Chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• staff um Mr burgers with House fiscal staff um Mr burgers with House fiscal Miss<00:02:25.160>
• <00:04:28.800> years<00:04:29.080> 26 bayum fiscal years 26 bayum fiscal years 26 27
• year 27 and the November the fiscal year 27 and fiscal<00:09:33.360> year<00:09:33.640> 29
• <00:10:26.399> that Administration um there's a note that Administration um there's a note
• So it went from about $70.7 million in fiscal year 23 up to $196 million in fiscal year 24. families

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met for an introductory overview of its jurisdiction and budget, with the chair emphasizing the committee’s role over a large portfolio of children, youth, and family programs and the new Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF). House Research and House Fiscal staff explained their roles and described the 2023-24 reorganization that transferred many programs from DHS, DPS, MDH, and MDE to DCYF, along with a statute recodification and a crosswalk resource for members. Doug Berg then walked through the committee’s budget structure, explaining the difference between all-funds and general fund views, the major funding sources, and how forecasted programs and grant bases roll forward. He highlighted that the committee’s general fund base is a little over $2.1 billion for the biennium, with large federal components such as SNAP and TANF, and noted smaller accounts including child protection-related opioid funds and federal reimbursement offsets (FFP) for administrative costs. Members asked several questions about federal financial participation, TANF, and the effect of the repeal of the Diversionary Work Program (DWP). Staff explained that FFP generally applies to administrative costs for federally related programs and usually does not change much unless program activity changes, while TANF is a block grant that has been stable for years. On DWP, staff said the program was sunsetted effective March 1, 2026, and that the associated funding and administrative costs were being reworked rather than simply removed. A member also asked about federal funding fluctuations; staff said no changes were currently factored in, though SNAP or other federal policy changes could alter future numbers. Danielle Penelli then presented on economic assistance and employment supports transferred to DCYF, focusing first on MFIP, Minnesota’s state-supervised, county-administered welfare program jointly funded by state and federal dollars. She explained that MFIP provides cash and food assistance, employment and training services, and related supports, with a 60-month time limit and certain exemptions for illness, incapacity, or other barriers to employment. She also described the program’s income and asset standards, including a $10,000 asset limit with exclusions for homesteads and one vehicle per assistance unit member age 16 or older. Members asked clarifying questions about how the time limit applies and what assets count, and staff responded that the limit applies to the caregiver and does not restart with additional children. Penelli also introduced support services grants, which fund employment services for MFIP, DWP, and SNAP participants through workforce centers, counties, tribes, and community agencies, and help cover some county and tribal administrative costs. She began outlining nutrition programs under DCYF, including SNAP, the Minnesota Food Assistance Program, the Minnesota Food Shelf Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, and the American Indian Food Sovereignty Program. No formal votes or bill actions were taken during this meeting; it was primarily an informational staff briefing and question-and-answer session.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to, we have to assign a fiscal note to this, and consistent with what Mr.
• We need to, we have to assign a fiscal note to this, and consistent with what Mr.
• It just says provide a fiscal impact.
• Generally, when you, during a session, you do fiscal notes, you do bienniums first and subsequent, but
• I don't know that I was insinuating that should be part of your fiscal note.

Keywords: 908, all