Transcript Highlights:

• I will note across our agencies, we also have a variety of trust funds and non-budgeted special revenue
• So these funds are dedicated funding pools managed separately from the general budget.
• I will note across our agencies, we also have a variety of trust funds and non-budgeted special revenue
• This fund has not historically been a major source of funds, but it has supported individual projects
• And the sales tax funds a huge amount of our discretionary funding.

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition No. 25-15, H.5505, “An Act to Protect Water and Nature.” Committee co-chairs outlined the Article 48 initiative process and explained that the hearing was divided into expert, proponent, opponent, and public-comment sections. The first witness, Undersecretary Stephanie Cooper of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, described current state and federal funding sources for land conservation and outdoor recreation, said existing programs are oversubscribed, and noted that the proposal aligns with the Commonwealth’s 30% land conservation goal by 2030 and 40% by 2050. She also flagged possible governance clarifications in the petition, including board structure and administrative authority, while saying the administration has the expertise to manage such a fund. Proponents from Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, Mount Grace Land Trust, the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, the Authentic Caribbean Foundation, and Bemis Associates argued that Massachusetts needs a dedicated, sustained revenue stream for conservation, clean water, climate resilience, and public access to nature. They said current funding is inconsistent and insufficient, cited estimates that the state may need roughly $300 million or more annually to meet conservation targets, and emphasized benefits to public health, mental health, biodiversity, flood protection, and the outdoor recreation economy. Several speakers said the measure would dedicate a portion of existing sales tax revenue tied to sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses, and that it would support both urban and rural communities, including underserved communities. Committee members pressed witnesses on the bill’s fiscal and constitutional implications, including how much sales tax revenue would be redirected, whether the measure is constitutional, how funds would be allocated among communities, and why the proposal includes certain revenue sources but not others such as ticket sales. Proponents said the measure would likely direct up to about $100 million annually when fully phased in, that it was designed as a “subject to appropriation” mechanism, and that legal review had found it constitutional. They also acknowledged that the proposal would reduce general fund flexibility but argued it would create a long-term investment in natural resources. The hearing concluded after public testimony, and the committee announced it would accept written testimony until March 27 at 5 p.m.; no vote was taken on the petition at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:20:31.280><c> fund</c> um deposit revenue into a special fund um deposit revenue into a special
• </c> to the special fund. to the special fund. &gt;&gt; Correct.<00:32:35.360><c> Correct.
• </c> directly to a cruise ship special fund. directly to a cruise ship special fund.
• <c> used</c> the new special fund is exclusively used the new special fund is exclusively used for<00
• </c><00:52:15.680><c> Um</c> special fund. Um special fund.

Bills: HB1709 , HB2195 , HB2023 , HB2031 , HB2033 , HB1937 , HB2586 , HB2575 , HB2038 , HB2030

Committee: Senate Transportation

Summary: The joint committees on Transportation, Labor and Technology, and later Transportation and Economic Development and Tourism, heard several bills. SB 2573 would allow administrative driver’s license revocation hearings to be held by interactive conference technology such as Zoom and permit electronic exchange of evidence. The chief adjudicator for the ADLRO supported it as a non-mandatory option that has worked well since 2021, improving attendance and saving time and money; DOT also supported it. The committees voted to pass SB 2573 with technical, non-substantive amendments. SB 3215 would make permanent the requirement that securing mooring lines at commercial docks be performed by labor subject to collective bargaining by repealing the sunset date in existing harbor safety law. DOT did not submit testimony, and the chair noted support from longshore labor. The committees voted to pass SB 3215 unamended. The committees also heard SB 2693, which authorizes $15 million in general obligation bonds for planning, design, and construction of a 50,000-square-foot aerospace hangar and related facilities at Hilo International Airport. A Phoenix Space executive testified in support, saying Hawaii and Hilo have geographic advantages and that the project could support aerospace investment and jobs; several other organizations and individuals submitted supportive testimony. Committee members questioned whether federal matching funds or airport capacity existed, and DOT said it had no assurance of federal participation and would need to check on capacity and potential users. The hearing then moved to SB 2698, which would create a cruise ship special fund and impose a per-passenger head fee on cruise ships docking in state commercial harbors while repealing the existing cruise ship TAT framework effective January 1, 2026. DOT supported the bill but requested amendments to clarify that the new fee is in addition to existing passenger, port entry, and dockage fees and to raise the fee from $6.50 to $10; DOT said the higher amount would better fund harbor improvements such as shore power. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings testified in support but said the added fee would significantly increase costs, while a local ship supply business supported the cruise industry and opposed the TAT approach, saying cruise activity benefits local farmers and jobs. No final vote on SB 2698 was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We manage three special schools, state special schools, two schools that serve, I think.
• We manage three special schools, state special schools: two schools that serve deaf students and one
• attention and special need.
• Finally, we support the Governor's special education proposal to improve funding stability and predictability
• We are very appreciative of the funding that is proposed for special education, but more needs to be

Summary: The subcommittee opened with remarks on the state budget and K-12 education, noting the large increase in the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee, the use of deferrals and reserves in the prior budget, and the challenge of balancing education funding against other state priorities. Superintendent Tony Thurmond described California education as improving overall, citing gains in test scores, graduation, and college readiness, but said major gaps remain for low-income students, students of color, agricultural communities, English learners, foster youth, and students with disabilities. He praised recent investments in universal meals, transitional kindergarten, community schools, arts, broadband, and special education, while warning that declining enrollment, chronic absenteeism, and the proposed $5.6 billion Prop. 98 settle-up create uncertainty for districts. He also urged a long-term literacy plan, expanded tutoring, universal kindergarten, and continued protections for students and families affected by immigration enforcement, including ICE-related fear and attendance loss. The committee then heard a detailed presentation on Proposition 98 from the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Finance explained that the Governor’s budget projects the minimum guarantee will rise by about $21.7 billion over three years, with a $5.6 billion settle-up obligation in 2025-26 intended to avoid overappropriation if revenues weaken. Finance also described revised reserve deposits and withdrawals, ending with about $4.1 billion in the Public School System Stabilization Account by 2026-27. The LAO said recent revenue collections were stronger than expected in the current year but warned that the outlook for 2026-27 is weaker and that stock-market-driven revenues remain volatile. The LAO supported maintaining reserves and one-time spending buffers, but recommended fully funding the guarantee and using other budget solutions rather than shifting the settle-up into future deficits. Members asked about the settle-up process, certification timeline, the effect of attendance declines tied to immigration enforcement, and wildfire-related impacts, including Pasadena Unified’s $4 million special appropriation. On LCFF and necessary small schools, Finance proposed a 2.41% COLA and about $2.2 billion in additional LCFF funding for districts and charters in 2026-27, plus a $30.7 million ongoing increase to raise the necessary small schools allowance by 20%. The LAO supported funding the COLA but said the small-school increase was not tied to a specific cost study and could be redesigned to better target small districts, noting that only a fraction of very small districts would benefit. Questions focused on how small schools access supplemental and concentration grants and how attendance recovery programs are being implemented. The Department of Education said only 130 LEAs had reported attendance recovery so far, likely because it is a new program with compliance requirements, though interest appears to be growing. FICMAT then reviewed the fiscal health of local districts, reporting an uptick in qualified and negative certifications, though still far below Great Recession levels. It said declining enrollment, rising special education costs, and higher labor and insurance costs are the biggest fiscal pressures, and that some districts are using fiscal stabilization plans and staff reductions ahead of second interim reports. FICMAT also discussed wildfire impacts on Pasadena Unified and Los Angeles Unified, explaining that Pasadena’s $4 million state appropriation was based on an early post-fire assessment and that the district is being monitored with the county office of education. Members raised concerns about Pasadena’s leadership, special education staffing shortages, AB 218 sexual abuse litigation costs, insurance premium increases, and the need for stronger prevention and training measures. FICMAT said SB 848 and related policies address some of those concerns by strengthening standards, training, and reporting requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislature created an account in the special revenue fund to reimburse school districts for their
• It reduces the cost to the state's special education-based budget since these amounts are funded directly
• The legislature created an account in the special revenue fund to reimburse school districts for their
• It reduces the cost to the state's special education-based budget since these amounts are funded directly
• special Revenue fund to also created the special Revenue fund to reimburse<00:10:42.360><c> districts

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund, and redirects any stipend funds repaid by a stipend recipient to the Early Learning special fund
• Fund, and redirects any stipend funds repaid by a stipend recipient to the Early Learning special fund
• How much is in the Early Learning special fund?
• How much is in the Early Learning special fund?
• </c><00:44:10.880><c> fund</c> Childhood educator special fund Childhood educator special fund recommendation

Committee: Senate Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education and Labor and Technology heard Senate Bill 420, which would extend Department of Education workers’ compensation coverage to newly graduated high school students participating in DOE-sponsored work-based learning programs through July 31 after graduation. DOE testified in support, estimating the bill could affect about 50 to 100 students in the first year and saying it would help students gain experience and transition to employment. Members asked about current coverage, costs, and partnerships; DOE said current coverage ends at graduation, there had been no incidents, and the bill would create no additional cost. The committees voted to pass SB 420 with amendments, including an amended effective date, and the bill was adopted. The Committee on Education then took up several education measures. It adopted a proposed SD1 for SB 894, a Farm to School measure that would appropriate funds to help meet a goal of serving 30% locally sourced food in public schools. The committee also heard SB 789 on school cafeteria meal costs; DOE said it wanted the existing requirement lowered from 50% of meal preparation cost to 25% rather than repealed, to align with its administrative package, and explained current prices were about $2.75 while meal costs were about $9. Testifiers from the Hawaii Public Health Institute and Hawaiʻi Appleseed supported removing the requirement entirely or at least reducing it, saying it would avoid large price jumps and move toward free school meals. The committee later voted to pass SB 789 with amendments lowering the threshold to one-fourth of meal cost and changing the effective date. The committee also heard SB 449 on a school facilities planning database. DOE said it supports better planning but believes the database should be housed within DOE rather than duplicated under the School Facilities Authority, while SFA supported the bill as a proactive decision-making tool. The Attorney General’s office suggested clarifying language to make clear references to the Board of Education. In later agenda items, the committee heard SB 423, which would add Head Start-related ex officio members to the Early Learning Board; EOEL and the board chair supported it and suggested technical language to preserve required representation. The committee also heard SB 1384, a housekeeping bill redirecting repaid early childhood educator stipend funds to the Early Learning special fund after the prior special fund was repealed; EOEL supported it and said about $31,864 was being recouped from nine recipients. Finally, SB 684 would require the Board of Education to adopt rules banning cell phones at DOE schools; testimony was in support, and members discussed the need for a consistent statewide policy, with the board expected to work on one in collaboration with DOE.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and then if that service is in the IEP, you can submit your IDEA funds; you can submit for special
• So all of those costs are still eligible for your IDEA funds or to be special education aid.
• Special education funding and coordination is at the district where the student is receiving their education
• </c> their funding. their funding.
• </c> not a special. not a special.

Committee: House Education Policy and Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> transferred to the special revenue fund. transferred to the special revenue fund.
• The total special revenue fund change items equal zero in each biennium. changes to the special revenue
• </c><00:27:02.640><c> You</c> the special revenue fund account.
• You the special revenue fund account.
• proposals to cut funding to special education transportation, and harmful cuts to special education

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• So the special education bureau had to prorate out down to 68%, so they couldn't fund $50 million because
• This is requiring catastrophic special education state aid funding to be drawn from the Education Trust
• </c><01:02:13.000><c> to</c> special education state aid funding to special education state aid funding
• </c><03:40:54.560><c> of</c><03:40:54.840><c> special</c><03:40:55.120><c> education</c> the extra funding
• of special education the extra funding of special education on<03:40:55.760><c> the</c><03:40:55.880

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met to review a large package of bills, with the first four—HB 717, 742, 773, and 603—focused on special education aid, formerly called catastrophic aid. Chair Ladin explained that the committee needed to move a special education bill forward by March 4 and was trying to determine which bill would serve as the vehicle. He described the current formula and the difficulty of estimating the fiscal impact of lowering the threshold from 3.5 times the statewide average cost per pupil to a lower level, noting that DOE did not have reliable data on how many students would fall into the lower-cost bands. The committee also noted that several other bills in the package addressed SWEP and adequacy issues, and that HB 510 dealt with due process rather than funding. Mark Mello of the Bureau of School Finance testified that the department only has reliable data for special education expenditures above $70,000 per student, since claims are submitted for reimbursement at that point. He said the bureau was trying to estimate how many students might fall between 2.5x and 3.5x or 3x and 3.5x the average cost, but that the basic answer was they did not know and that any estimate would be difficult. He explained that moving the threshold from 3.5x to 2.5x would create a minimum additional cost of about $13.6 million based on existing claims, not counting new students who would enter the range. Members discussed whether districts already had the underlying data, whether a survey should be required, and how districts know when to begin tracking costs for reimbursement. The committee also discussed proration and the state’s share of special education aid. Mello explained that the current 80% state share is modeled in the formula, but the actual payment has been prorated because appropriations have not matched the statutory liability; he said the state liability was about $50 million, while the budget had provided $34 million, resulting in a 68% payment rate. HB 742 was described as a bill that would eliminate proration by paying the liability directly from the education trust fund with an overflow mechanism. Members also discussed possible alternatives such as changing the state share, using a lower threshold in a transition period, or requiring districts to submit data. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided; the committee was still in discussion and considering which bills to advance.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is funding from other state funds, so non-general fund.
• So I am concerned that I don't see any special funding for the Attorney General's office to, if House
• So I am concerned that I don't see any special funding for the Attorney General's office to, if how?
• special funding for the Attorney General's office to, if House Joint Memorial 2 passes, it would have
• I believe the discussion around this one was that some of those funds from the special for this particular

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• It is funded at $205.6 million, with 66.1 being state general fund.
• and the REaD fund.
• He will take a look at that $70.1 million of state general fund, and that is largely tied to the special
• Who will take a look at the special school district sources of funding other than general fund, as I
• stated earlier,... ...the special school district sources of funding, other than general fund, as I stated

Committee: House Appropriations

Summary: The committee met on March 17 to review the FY27 budgets for the Department of Education and several special schools and commissions. Fiscal staff outlined the Department of Education’s roughly $6.4 billion budget, noting that most funding goes to the Minimum Foundation Program and subgrantee assistance. Major changes discussed included the removal of one-time teacher pay stipends, increases for the LA GATOR scholarship program, and projected adjustments in early childhood funding. Members also reviewed the constitutional amendment proposal tied to using about $2 billion to pay down teacher retirement obligations and provide future teacher pay raises. Dr. Cade Brumley testified that Louisiana’s education outcomes have improved and answered questions on math performance, charter school funding, the LA GATOR scholarship, and the special education Choice program. Members pressed the department on the sustainability and balance of funding between LA GATOR and Choice, the number of applicants and current recipients, and outreach efforts. Brumley said charter schools are funded through the MFP like other public schools, that LA GATOR currently serves about 5,500 students with applications recently reaching about 17,000, and that the Choice program serves about 500 students with a waiting list of about 700 applicants. He also said the department would implement whatever funding levels the legislature approves. The committee then heard the special schools and commissions budget, including the Special School District, Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts, Thrive Academy, École Pointe-au-Chien, Louisiana Public Broadcasting, and BESE. Testimony focused on facility needs, enrollment, and program outcomes. LSU? No—LSM leaders described urgent roof and ceiling repairs estimated at about $800,000, while Thrive Academy highlighted student achievement, community service requirements, and economic impact. LPB said it is facing a federal funding loss of about $2.5 million and is responding with higher Passport fees, underwriting, and private fundraising. BESE’s small staff and administrative role were also explained, with members asking about board operations and the use of statutory dedication funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the AOJ funding that you get is through special language? Yes. Okay.
• Chairman, on the isolated special needs isolated funding.
• left over that moves down to isolated fund special needs isolated...
• Any additional funding left over that moves down to isolated fund special needs isolated funding.
• So there's different federal funding categoricals, but there is a category for special education funding

Committee: All JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE

Transcript Highlights:

• so not including revenues in the nutrition fund, the community service fund, the debt service fund, you
• Hofer suggested yesterday, that increasingly the share of special education aid in the general fund is
• Aid uh special expenditures on special Aid uh special ed<00:43:01.680><c> exceed</c><00:43:02.200><c
• My district has more money coming out of the general fund to cover special education services than, you
• My district has more money coming out of the general fund to cover special education services than, you

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• ETC funds are completely separate, and those costs, the expenses for each fund, are completely separate
• >> So, in terms of the funding that we get, >> So, in terms of the funding that we get, we have probably
• at the cost of special education and We're looking at the cost of special education and the cost in
• I'm saying it also in the education funding committee when we're talking about special education services
• And also there was some concern with the funding that perhaps with the EFA funding increasing and you

Summary: The Education Freedom Account Oversight Committee met on March 27 and approved the agenda, adding a request for clarification on how the Children’s Scholarship Fund separates applications for the EFA program and the education tax credit program. The committee also approved minutes from December 30, 2025, and March 27, 2026, with a request that the March minutes include a link to the live stream. Members discussed the status of pending Legislative Budget Assistant audit reports on EFA and special education, noting the reports were still not released and would likely come later in the summer after review by the Department of Education and the Children’s Scholarship Fund. A major topic was the EFA program’s administrative fee, which statute allows up to 10% of deposits. Children’s Scholarship Fund representatives said current administrative costs were under 8%, that staffing had been reduced through the ScholarVia platform, and that any unused amount is reconciled and returned to students at year’s end. Members asked for historical administrative-cost data and a written explanation of how the withholding and reconciliation process works. The committee also reviewed the distinction between the EFA and education tax credit funding streams and was told the two programs use separate applications and separate funds, though both use the same platform. The committee spent substantial time on assessment and accountability. Department of Education staff explained that EFA students may satisfy annual assessment requirements through a portfolio, a norm-referenced test, or the statewide assessment; only about 10 EFA students took the statewide assessment, while most used portfolios or standardized tests such as the California Achievement Test and NWEA. Staff described how statewide assessment data are kept separate by student identifier and can be aggregated for EFA reporting, and members asked for breakdowns by grade, test type, and school district. The department also discussed linking assessments through Lexiles and Quantiles and said it could provide a list of commonly used formative assessments in New Hampshire districts. The committee additionally discussed a possible PSAT addition to the state contract and the costs of the statewide assessment program. Another major issue was special education eligibility and services within the EFA program. Members questioned the rule allowing a medical certification of disability from a licensed professional anywhere in the United States as an alternative to an IEP-based determination. Department staff said the current system allows either pathway, that about 1,000 EFA students are identified as special education students, and that the program does not track growth or service alignment on an individual basis. Members expressed concern that the medical-certification route may be too broad and asked for data on the disability categories used. The committee also discussed career and technical education access for EFA students, noting that Senate Bill 491 would provide guidance and that House Bill 1817 would address access and funding issues, but that current law still allows EFA funds to be used to pay CTE costs. The meeting ended with a request for future agenda items and a decision to leave the next meeting date open until fall, pending further information from the LBA audit process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, Senator Axtman and I both served on the special committee or special task working group.
• and $39 million of private funds.
• ...on a funding basis.
• Our special session began September 2nd. Our special session begins September 2nd.
• any of that conflict with special session rules. for the duration of the special session.

Committee: Joint Legislative Management

Transcript Highlights:

• However, you would have to start having conversations about funding special ed costs within the other
• </c><00:44:05.760><c> special</c><00:44:06.040><c> ed</c> conversations about funding special ed conversations
• about funding special ed costs<00:44:06.520><c> within</c><00:44:06.840><c> the</c><00:44:07.080><c>
• However, they come up with that agreement on how to fund those special education services.
• </c> than say special education. than say special education.

Summary: The committee of conference on HB 751 reviewed amendment 2026-1904H page by page, focusing on open enrollment rules, capacity definitions, statewide enrollment limits, denial criteria, transportation, and funding. Members discussed clarifying that districts may set capacity at zero if they truly have no room, creating a statewide enrollment cap of 500 that can increase by 25% if it reaches 90% utilization, and exempting seats already used by open enrollment students before October 1, 2026. They also discussed how the Department of Education would allocate seats through rulemaking, while local districts would still set capacity, with grandfathered seats preserved where districts already allow open enrollment. A substantial portion of the meeting centered on when districts may deny open enrollment applications. The amendment would allow denials for reasons such as chronic absenteeism or disciplinary history, while requiring districts to consider whether those issues are tied to disability, McKinney-Vento status, foster care, or bullying. Members emphasized that such factors are to be considered, not used as the sole basis for rejection, and noted that the bill separately prohibits receiving schools from accepting or rejecting applicants based on pupil needs, special education needs, disability, aptitude, or athletic achievement. There was also discussion of whether interdistrict transfers should count toward open enrollment capacity, with a suggestion that a carve-out may be needed. The committee also reviewed provisions on program-specific capacity, continuous enrollment, and transportation. It was explained that capacity can apply to a school, grade, program, or class, including CTE programs, and that students may be denied if a specific program is full or if they do not meet prerequisites. The group clarified that open enrollment pupils would maintain continuous enrollment without reapplying, though there was concern about how that would work if district capacity changes over time. Transportation would generally be the parent’s responsibility unless required by an IEP or 504 plan, though students may use an existing bus route if seats are available and the receiving district allows it. On funding, the committee noted that the amendment changes the earlier HB 751 approach and instead ties open enrollment funding to base adequacy, differentiated aid, and an additional grant modeled on charter school funding, with dates removed at the department’s request. Members also raised concerns about how open enrollment would interact with existing tuition agreements and whether districts could use the new pathway to alter or pressure those arrangements. Department staff said districts would still be required to maintain a school of record and provide an adequate education free of charge outside the open enrollment program, and that if open enrollment enrollment became unusually large relative to district adequacy enrollment, the issue could be brought to the state board. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll start this meeting of Special Language.
• There's not been funding for it, and so there's a separate appropriation that would add funding for it
• It amends Section 17 by removing the inability to transfer funds to the county jail reimbursement fund
• fee on special revenue funds for those six promotion boards in the Department of Agriculture.
• All adopted amendments are released from special language.

Committee: All JBC-SPECIAL LANGUAGE

Summary: The Special Language subcommittee met with a quorum and reviewed several governor’s letters containing special language for appropriations bills. Members heard housekeeping about the subcommittee’s call-based schedule and its role in reviewing only special language, not appropriations or personnel items. The committee then considered amendments affecting the Department of Finance and Administration, Department of Correction, Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Public Safety, shared administrative services, Commerce/Workforce Services, and Environment and Quality. Key items included language directing DFA to limit administrative costs for pregnancy help organizations to 25% of awards; removing conflicting language so county jail reimbursement funds can only receive transfers in, not out; updating code to assign child nutrition responsibilities to the Department of Agriculture; implementing Act 909 of 2025 changes for school district EBD employer contributions and teacher equalization funds; and allowing the state CFO to waive a 3% central services fee for agricultural promotion boards to keep more funds in the industry. Members also discussed using Camp Robinson facility revenues for maintenance, allowing shared services billing under the Arkansas Forward Initiative, designating Arkansas Rehabilitation Services as the state unit for vocational rehab grants, and capping used tire program reimbursement rates at $2.31 starting July 1, 2026. There was brief discussion on the agriculture fee waiver, with questions about its purpose, duration, and possible precedent; agency officials said it was a discretionary, point-in-time waiver meant to help the farm sector during a crisis. Another question addressed reporting on crisis pregnancy center grants, with DFA noting no grant funds had yet been distributed this fiscal year. Each amendment was adopted by voice vote, item 9 was skipped because it was superseded by item 10, and the meeting adjourned after all agenda items were completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• that's the rules of special language?
• Sections 8 and 9 are fund transfers to the Quick Action Closing Fund.
• Sections 8 and 9 are fund transfers to the Quick Action Closing Fund.
• by $73.8 million and other funds?
• But back on page one, in the general fund, in the public school fund, it's zero. It's the same.

Committee: All JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE

Summary: The committee met to consider a long caption of House and Senate bills, first announcing a list of measures ready to be passed out and then taking up a special language subcommittee report. The report covered several bills, including SB 63, SB 67, SB 73, HB 1089, HB 1090, and HB 1093, along with amendments to a larger group of bills. A motion was made to pull HB 107 out separately, but after discussion about the amendment’s impact on school districts and the process for further debate, the substitute motion failed and the special language report was adopted. The committee then considered the revenue stabilization law and schedule. Staff explained that the main changes from the governor’s balanced budget proposal were moving county operations and higher education allocations from category B to category A, and described several fund transfers, including $100 million to Medicaid sustainability, $70 million to the Arkansas Children’s Educational Freedom account, $43.7 million to discretionary set-asides, $5 million to the motor vehicle set-aside, and two $150 million transfers related to the Quick Action Closing Fund and highway improvements. After questions about the schedule’s funding changes, the committee adopted the amendment and then passed House Bill 1100 and Senate Bill 75 as amended. Representative McClendon then presented a bill to support expansion of the Bella Vista Veterans Wall of Honor, requesting $400,000, but withdrew the bill, saying he would seek alternate funding. The committee then moved through the remaining captioned House and Senate bills, including HB 105, HB 107, HB 1008, HB 1022, HB 1035, HB 1036, HB 1037, HB 1051, HB 1052, HB 1064, HB 1066, HB 1068, HB 1089, HB 1090, HB 1093, and Senate Bills 3, 4, 7, 8, 15, 20, 21, 30, 31, 36, 41, 43, 58, 63, 67, 73, and 77, approving them with or without amendments as noted. The chair also announced that all prior holds had been released and said the next meeting would be a Joint Budget Committee meeting focused only on peer issues before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some concerns about the implementation timeline for the new special... education funding system, so I
• The statewide average funding includes special education funding and in general the concentration of
• continue to fund special education the same way we're currently funding it.
• Thank you. of this transition in special education funding. It is desperately needed.
• I'm here to advocate for increased... special education funding.

Bills: HB2 , HB2

Committee: House Public Education

Keywords: public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, disaster preparedness, emergency management, flooding, mass fatality, mass casualty, fatality tracking, body recovery, autopsy, justice of the peace

Transcript Highlights:

• grants</c> security special fund to provide grants security special fund to provide grants to<00:26:19.120
• ><c> something</c> Security Special Fund um is something Security Special Fund um is something that<00
• The subchapter security special fund.
• be able to fund this um this<00:46:44.960><c> special</c><00:46:45.200><c> fund.
• In the 10th instance this special fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are special interest groups that are actually funding lawyers who are in that office and doing
• , taking public authority but being funded by private funding.
• </c> but being funded by private uh funding but being funded by private uh funding and<00:05:16.080><
• special privilege to hide stuff.
• > privilege</c> special treatment and special privilege special treatment and special privilege to<00

Summary: House Majority Leader Harry Niska discussed House File 20, a bill he said would amend Minnesota’s Data Practices Act by adding the words “on individuals” to clarify that the private-data exemption applies only to information actually tied to an individual person. He argued the bill would overturn a 2022 Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Energy Policy Advocates v. Allison that, in his view, allowed the Attorney General’s office to withhold policymaking and closed investigative data even when no individual privacy interest was involved. Niska framed the measure as a transparency and democracy issue, saying the Attorney General’s office should not have a special secrecy privilege that other state agencies and prosecutors do not have. In response to questions, Niska said the Attorney General opposed the bill, citing concerns about the cost and burden of data practices requests and raising a broader question about whether some businesses might have privacy interests similar to individuals. Niska said the bill is not meant to eliminate legitimate privacy protections for actual individuals, including sensitive investigative information, but to prevent the office from using the private-data category to shield non-personal information. He also said the issue arose in part from information about outside influence on the Attorney General’s office, including funding for positions through NYU and the Bloomberg Foundation. Niska said the bill had been introduced by Republicans two years earlier but did not receive a hearing, and he expected it to come to the House floor because Republicans now control committees. He said Democrats were expected to vote as a bloc against it, and he suggested the vote would show where members stand on transparency. He also said other GOP priorities may move through committees and to the floor as they are ready, mentioning permitting reform, repeal of the nuclear moratorium, and an OIG-related bill, but he did not provide a detailed schedule. No vote on the bill was taken during the exchange.