Transcript Highlights:

• And that's not a cost of the state. That's the cost to every individual county.
• And that's not a cost of the state. That's the cost to every individual county.
• It would help with the allocation of polling locations.
• So this better allocates the polls. That's why I was talking about the allocation.
• It is a vendor bill, because it's going to cost money.

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 3709, which would change the partial manual audit process so early voting could be audited by voting location rather than by randomly selected precincts. The author and several supporters said the current precinct-based process is antiquated, labor-intensive, and especially difficult in countywide voting systems and large counties. Opponents and some neutral witnesses raised concerns about whether the change would still allow an apples-to-apples audit against official precinct results, whether random selection procedures should be more clearly defined, and how ballot secrecy and mail ballots would be handled. The Secretary of State’s office said counties already use random selection methods and that the bill would largely standardize early voting audits with election-day procedures, while also noting ballot privacy issues can arise in public records requests. After testimony, the bill was left pending. The committee then took up House Bill 766, as substituted, which would require precinct chair applicants to provide an email address, phone number, or both, while making that contact information confidential. Supporters said the change would help parties and local officials contact applicants more efficiently. Opponents argued it could expose personal contact information to public records requests and harassment, and some suggested the information should instead be handled through party rules. The bill was left pending after the committee substitute was withdrawn. House Bill 3775 followed and would set clearer timelines for when early voting ballot boards may begin opening carrier envelopes, with different start times based on county size. Supporters said the bill would address counties opening ballots too early and improve ballot security, while opponents warned it could delay defect notices and cure opportunities for mail voters and create problems in large counties that process high volumes of ballots. Testimony also focused on whether the bill referred to carrier envelopes or secrecy envelopes and on how counties like Harris County currently image and secure ballot materials. The bill was left pending. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 4275, which would require countywide polling systems to have polling places in each election precinct, intended to address uneven distribution of polling locations across county commissioner precincts. Supporters said the bill would make polling place distribution fairer and more consistent, especially in Harris County, while opponents said it would undermine countywide voting, increase costs, require more equipment and staff, and reduce local flexibility. Several witnesses also raised concerns about ballot secrecy and the practical burden on large and rural counties. The bill remained under discussion as testimony continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're currently conducting a survey to determine the cost of an outage: what does it cost you?
• Not what it costs the co-op, but what does it cost you?
• What does it cost a member when there's a power outage?
• The cost of living is just high.
• What was the cost of the homes that were destroyed?

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think a lot of that cost overrun was in the addition of another meal.
• So it wasn't just the cost of that. It's not that we suddenly increased the cost of.
• If you build a building, your engineering costs should be about 10 to 15 percent of the total cost of
• We can't exceed 10% of engineering costs; some type of cap is needed to hold down their costs.
• or this is how much it should cost for the planning and design.

Transcript Highlights:

• **SB 1** provides additional funding authority to the Department of Justice to reimburse costs associated
• The first of those dollars were allocated to state departments the very next day on Friday.
• Have they only allocated two and a half million for that purpose?
• allocation period.
• That other $25 million is actually allocations. Thank you.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But we'll have to allocate about $30 million to cover that estimated cost.
• ><00:52:04.319> cost.
• Moving to no-cost items.
• cost items.
• These are additional no cost cost items.

Bills: HF2430, HF2433

Keywords: education finance, teacher training, Read Act, state aid, school funding, education funding, children with disabilities, transition aid, special education, school district consolidation, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• purchase power costs, our energy. purchase power costs, our energy.
• And so PBR worked in terms of containing that cost increase and cost upward pressure.
• proceed under a rate uh cost service. proceed under a rate uh cost service.
• costs for customers.
• costs for that transition, lower costs costs for that transition, lower costs for<01:35:40.960><

Bills: HB1617

Keywords: carbon emissions, tax credit, fossil fuel, agriculture, food security, environmental tax, greenhouse gas, 910, house, all

Summary: The committees heard testimony on HB 1949, which would create a public dashboard for the green fee to improve transparency and accountability. Testimony from the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, and many community and conservation groups was generally supportive, with several speakers urging that the governor’s project recommendations remain largely intact and that community-driven projects continue to guide spending. One amendment was suggested to place the dashboard at the Department of Budget and Finance for fiscal expertise, while other testimony favored keeping it with the commission. Members asked about procurement, ETS involvement, recurring hosting costs, and whether the dashboard could be funded from green fee revenues; the commission said it could work with ETS and that green fee funds could reasonably be used. The committees then voted to pass HB 1949 with amendments. The committees also heard HB 2618, which would require the governor to submit a separate bill for amounts tied to any increase in the transient accommodations tax and, in later discussion, was expanded into a broader restructuring of future green fee allocations. Testimony from the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, and others supported the bill and emphasized the value of more predictable, dedicated funding for conservation and climate-related work. During decision-making, the chair described amendments creating several special funds under DLNR, including a watershed biodiversity and wildfire risk reduction fund, an aquatic resources conservation fund, a coastal restoration fund, a cesspool conversion revolving loan fund, and a green fee special fund for remaining revenues, with recommended amounts discussed for some of the funds. The committees voted to pass HB 2618 with amendments. The hearing then moved to HB 1644, a consumer protection measure for residential solar sales that would require compliance with consumer protection laws, licensing or contractor affiliation for sellers, and a standardized disclosure form. Testimony in support came from the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, DCCA’s Office of Consumer Protection, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, the Hawaii Solar Energy Association, and several solar companies and individuals. Supporters said the bill would address complaints about third-party sales practices and improve disclosure, especially around financing. The committee then began hearing HB 2243, which would require electric utilities to provide public, electronic customer bill impact analyses and annual reports to the Public Utilities Commission; the Division of Consumer Advocacy and the PUC offered comments supporting the measure’s intent.

Transcript Highlights:

• The cost of living throughout California varies, although...
• When exactly is the state going to recognize those higher costs and decide how it's going to allocate
• If you wanted to avoid that additional cost.
• Retirement costs and benefit costs. So we are able to kind of pull that information apart.
• as well as rising costs.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• current allocation the current law<00:05:29.360> allocation<00:05:29.840> of<00:05:29.919
• > the<00:05:30.000> transportation law allocation of the transportation law allocation
• taken by Mega retailers these new cost taken by Mega retailers these new cost and<00:10:36.920><
• Bartle about costs, and I thought he explained that very well: costs of administering this for a small
• that very well costs of explained that very well costs of administering<00:37:12.480> this<00:

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 5 was heard in the Transportation Committee and moved by the author, Representative Jim Joy, to be referred to the Tax Committee. Joy described the bill as a package to make Minnesota more affordable by fully eliminating the Social Security tax subtraction, ending the motor fuels tax indexing, repealing the retail delivery fee, and studying vehicle registration/license taxes compared with neighboring states. Committee fiscal staff explained the bill’s fiscal effects across the general fund, highway user tax distribution fund, transportation advancement account, and metro county sales tax allocations, including that the delivery fee repeal would reduce Transportation Advancement Account revenue and that the bill would shift some revenue sources to offset losses. Several stakeholders testified. The Minnesota Grocers Association strongly supported repealing the retail delivery fee, arguing it is costly and complex for retailers to administer, especially small businesses, and that the costs are ultimately passed on to consumers. The Minnesota Propane Association also supported repeal, saying the fee is burdensome for propane businesses, that only a small share of deliveries are actually subject to it, and that compliance costs can exceed the fee revenue collected. Fiscal staff noted that delivery fee revenue forecasts have fallen below earlier projections, and explained that the fee is imposed on sellers with several exemptions, including a $100 transaction threshold and exemptions for some sales such as bars, restaurants, nonprofits, and certain small businesses. Opposition came from local government groups. The League of Minnesota Cities said it supported the Transportation Advancement Account and its 2023 funding sources, including the delivery fee and motor vehicle parts sales tax, and warned that the bill would prematurely alter a funding structure that cities rely on for predictable transportation revenue. The Minnesota Association of Small Cities said small cities had long lacked dedicated transportation funding and wanted a stable, ongoing revenue stream, but were neutral on the exact source as long as it was reliable. Metro Cities echoed support for stable, predictable transportation funding for metro-area cities. The committee took testimony and discussion only; no final vote was recorded in the excerpt beyond the motion to refer the bill to the Tax Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<00:04:55.160> and million remaining to allocate, and million remaining to allocate, and
• So, 59% of the funds that are allocated to Kentucky are sub-allocated to substate areas, which are based
• These sub-allocated funds cannot be transferred.
• So, let's look at these allocations.
• So, let's look at these allocations. allocations. allocations.

Keywords: 00:05 Call to Order and Roll Call 01:55 Bridge Improvement Program 18:56 County Priority Projects Program 38:10 Transportation Alternative Program 51:47 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The committee met for the first interim meeting of the 2025 Budget Review Committee on Transportation and heard from Bobby Jo Lewis, commissioner of Rural and Municipal Aid at the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. She reviewed the new County City Bridge Improvement Program, created in the 2024 regular session, reporting that phases one and two are complete, 45 bridges have been funded so far, and about $18.45 million has been authorized. She said roughly $6.549 million remains for phase three in the current fiscal year, with about $26.445 million in bridge applications still pending. For fiscal year 2026, the program will again have $25 million and will use four application phases. She also described a training resource, Local Bridges 101, and said a new executive advisor, Greg Meredith, has been brought in to help with the bridge program. Members asked how rollover applications would be handled, whether they would be re-evaluated with new applications, how the program would account for bridge longevity and load posting, and how isolated communities would be prioritized. Lewis said applicants not funded in FY25 would be contacted and could choose to roll their applications into FY26, and all applications would be evaluated together at the end of each phase. She said preservation projects are assessed for how much they extend a bridge’s life, and isolated community access bridges or closed bridges with no detour access receive priority. She also said the department aims for equitable distribution across regions and plans to produce a map showing where funds have been awarded. Lewis then turned to the County Priority Projects Program and the Local Assistance Road Program established in House Bill 546 and related resolutions. She said the application cycle opened June 1 and closes October 1, with 106 memoranda of agreement being prepared for awards in House Joint Resolution 46. She described updated application and reporting forms, a scoring matrix, and a County City Pavement Evaluation Manual used to rate projects based on preservation of assets, average daily traffic, recent improvements, safety, cost, and district priority. She said projects must be rehabilitation projects designed to restore the original condition of the road, cannot exceed $500,000, and must use local match percentages tied to the economic development grant program formula. She also reported on funding status for prior road projects, including completed, partially completed, pending, and underrun amounts that may be reauthorized. Committee members asked about photo documentation, online access to project materials, how to measure whether projects truly restore roads to original condition, and what happens when project costs exceed estimates. Lewis said the department is still working on how best to store and share the large volume of photos, and that projects are certified through district offices and local sign-off after completion. She said overages are the responsibility of the applicant because the state does not have additional money beyond the awarded amount. No formal votes were taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• districts can use to cover these costs districts can use to cover these costs going<00:03:27.120
• talk about the reductions in allocations talk about the reductions in allocations we<00:04:02.360
• to 95% of the eligible costs.
• to 95% of the eligible costs.
• the building allocation decrease to 60%. the building allocation decrease to 60%.

Bills: HF1388

Keywords: BARR Center, Building Assets, Reducing Risks, education finance, school funding, grant appropriation, evidence-based program, student achievement, social and emotional learning, school climate, teacher effectiveness, high school graduation, students in poverty, students of color, BIPOC, equity in education, Minnesota Department of Education, urban schools, suburban schools, rural schools, school coaching

Transcript Highlights:

• We have nothing in law to show that money is actually going to drive down costs.
• We have nothing in law to show that money is actually going to drive down costs.
• Increasing costs and stifling economic growth.
• This overreach stifles innovation, raises consumer costs, and offers no clear public benefit.
• This overreach stifles innovation, raises consumer costs, and offers no clear public benefit.

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• About the same cost, if not actually less costly.
• We are allowed to use cost allocation for positions like our commissioner, myself, some of the names
• Within this total are the construction costs, which are being provided by Mortensen, NDIT costs, which
• This includes costs such as the site costs, professional fees for the architect, owner's rep, special
• And our design to date, our scope cost estimate Our design to date, our scope cost estimations are running

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee first approved the December 10 minutes and then received a DEQ base budget summary and agency overview. DEQ staff explained that the agency is largely federally and special funded, with major ongoing costs in salaries, operating expenses, grants, and continuing appropriations. Director Dave Glatt and accounting director Beth Jacobson highlighted core programs, the move to a new chemistry laboratory, the new state fuel inspection program, wastewater-related funding from HB 1577, and implementation of SB 2267 for on-site wastewater rules. They also noted the agency’s spending patterns, possible federal EPA cuts, and the likelihood of some fee adjustments or program changes if federal support declines. Members asked about DEQ’s travel, field offices, future staffing, and how the agency would respond to reduced federal regulation. DEQ said most staff are based in Bismarck, with field offices in Fargo, Sawyer, and Gwinner, and that travel is driven by inspections and spill response. Glatt said the agency would continue to rely on science and law, and that any future federal retrenchment could mean more state responsibility but likely not a wholesale increase in FTEs. The committee also discussed a feedlot enforcement case in the Minot area, with DEQ explaining its role in ensuring compliance, permitting, and animal-waste management standards. The Department of Health and Human Services then presented on FTE block grant reporting, TANF balances, child care transfers, and the Rural Health Transformation Program. Donna Ockland explained that no line-item transfers had occurred yet for the new rural health work, but about 33 positions were planned and some current staff time could be reimbursed through approved cost allocation. HHS also reviewed TANF’s frozen eligibility and block grant structure, the transfer of up to 30% of TANF funds to child care, and recent program changes that increased benefits and raised the income limit. Staff said the department is using TANF more strategically to support child care and other allowable uses, while still carrying over unused funds as many states do. Finally, Pat and HHS staff gave an update on the Rural Health Transformation Program, saying the first funding opportunity was being posted and that the state is on track to obligate the federal funds within the required timeline. They described priorities such as workforce retention, preceptor development, technical assistance for critical access hospitals, community wellness projects, and ambulance upgrades. Members asked about rural versus urban eligibility, immigrant recruitment, evaluation of year-two funding, and how the program would address varied local workforce needs. The meeting then shifted to an Office of Management and Budget update on the new State Hospital project, where Lindsay Ashley reported continued construction progress, updated cost information, and selected alternates, with photos and details showing work underway in multiple building sections.

Transcript Highlights:

• that they allocated.
• <00:47:41.520> and are going to be these these costs and are going to be these these costs
• And running a school costs money, and educating children costs money.
• the cost of people using this protocol. the cost of people using this protocol.
• cost of something?

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The 3% allocated to underrepresented minority students was the recommendation.
• underneath Chapter 13A, actually costs the comprehensive universities.
• <00:19:05.200> these regulation and allocating these regulation and allocating these percentages
• So not automated—trying to break that down for a cost is incredibly difficult. Okay.
• So not automated—trying to break that down for a cost is incredibly difficult. Okay.

Keywords: 0:01– Meeting start/roll call 0:34 – Approval of minutes 0:48 – Welcome of new committee members 1:34 – Council on Postsecondary Education 25:17 – Teachers’ Retirement System 27:00 – Kentucky Public Pension Authority 29:04 – Board of Veterinary Examiners 31:40 – Board of Nursing 34:01 – Board of Emergency Medical Services 36:15 – Fish & Wildlife Resources 40:34 – Department of Corrections 56:00 – Department of State Police 58:05 – Department of Criminal Justice Training 59:22 – Transportation Cabinet 1:00:18 – Department of Education 1:01:23 – Department of Employment Services 1:04:17 – Department of Workplace Standards 1:05:25 – Department of Housing, Buildings & Construction 1:06:59 – Cabinet for Health & Family Services, Dept. for Public Health (Sanitation) 1:13:50 – Cabinet for Health & Family Services, Dept. for Public Health (Trauma System) 1:17:46 – Cabinet for Health & Family Services, Dept. for Public Health (Radon) 1:18:30 – Cabinet for Health & Family Services, Dept. for Medicaid Services 1:19:15 – Cabinet for Health & Family Services, Dept. of Aging Services 1:20:36 – Other Business/Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee met with a quorum, approved the minutes, and welcomed new members before taking up Council on Postsecondary Education regulations 13 KAR 2:120 and 13 KAR 2:130. The regulations, as amended by staff and agency amendments, update public university and KCTCS performance funding models to conform to 2024 Senate Bill 191 and the performance funding work group’s recommendations. Changes discussed included replacing the underrepresented minority metric with an underrepresented students metric defined as first-generation students, adding an adult learner metric, increasing the low-income degree premium, adjusting small-school and nonresident credit-hour weights, revising data aging and progression metrics, and adding STEM+H criteria in 13 KAR 2:120. Travis Pal of the Council on Postsecondary Education explained that the changes reflect the work group’s three-year review process and that the work group ultimately voted to define underrepresented students as first-generation students and to apply half-weighting between research and comprehensive universities for the new metric. Michael Frasier of the Kentucky Student Rights Coalition and Eastern Kentucky University student government opposed 13 KAR 2:120, arguing that the regulation improperly applies weights where the statute does not clearly authorize them and that the funding changes disadvantage comprehensive universities and vulnerable students. He asked the committee to find the regulation deficient or, alternatively, recommend legislative clarification and a revised fiscal analysis. Pal responded that weighting has been part of the model since 2017, that CPE was following the statute and work group recommendations, and that the model could be changed by future legislation. Members asked about the timing of the broader performance funding review, and Pal said the full model is reviewed every three years, with the next work group cycle beginning in 2026. No motion to find the regulation deficient was made, and the committee allowed the regulations to proceed to the committee of jurisdiction. The committee then approved a staff amendment to Teachers’ Retirement System regulations 102 KAR 1:195 and 102 KAR 1:340, which require annual reporting of accumulated sick leave, leave policies, and salary schedules to TRS and make technical changes to the final average salary calculation and related definitions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Public ownership of transmission using low-cost public financing can reduce the long-term cost passed
• cost alternative financing.
• Fixed costs average about 70% of the total costs of a water utility.
• It looks at some variable costs, but as we've heard, 60s, 70% are fixed costs.
• costs.

Summary: The committee heard several energy and water affordability bills, with extensive testimony on SB 254 by Senator Becker, SB 541 by Senator Becker, SB 453 by Senator Stern, SB 292 by Senator Caballero, and SB 473 by Senator Padilla. SB 254 was presented as a broad utility affordability package addressing short-term climate credits, a Power Fund, tighter scrutiny of rate increases and utility profits, wildfire spending, securitization of future utility costs, and streamlining. Supporters, including TURN and several environmental and public power groups, said it could lower bills and reduce long-term costs; opponents from investor-owned utilities, labor, business, and local government raised concerns about market impacts, insufficient analysis, and the breadth of the bill. The committee approved SB 254 on a 6-3 vote and placed it on call. SB 541 focused on load flexibility and using existing grid capacity more efficiently. Senator Becker described it as a transparency and planning measure to identify cost-effective load shifting and reduce peak demand, while supporters said it could improve resiliency and save money. Several CCAs and utilities opposed the bill in print or unless amended, arguing that some language implied a mandate and that the concept needed more cost-effectiveness analysis; the author said amendments would remove language dividing the state goal among retail suppliers and clarify that the bill is not a procurement mandate. The committee passed SB 541 as amended to Appropriations on a 9-1 vote and left it on call. SB 453 by Senator Stern would return unspent ratepayer-funded microgrid program dollars and was described as a way to keep the lights on and redirect unused funds. It drew support from local government and environmental groups, with PG&E expressing concern about how the bill would affect its ability to spend awarded funds. The committee passed SB 453 as amended to Appropriations on a 12-0 vote. SB 292 by Senator Caballero would require more granular outage and reliability reporting, including census-tract-level data, to better inform resilience planning after PSPS events; utilities opposed unless amended, citing duplicative reporting and regulatory overlap, but the bill passed 12-0 to Appropriations. SB 473 by Senator Padilla would require or expand water utility decoupling to promote conservation and affordability. Supporters, including water utilities, labor, business, and local government groups, argued decoupling stabilizes revenue, supports conservation, and can keep rates lower for low-use customers. The Public Advocates Office opposed, saying prior pilot data showed no conservation benefit and about $1 billion in added costs, and that the CPUC had already rejected similar requests. Committee members questioned the conservation and capital-investment effects of the different rate structures; the author and supporters argued decoupling helps utilities fund infrastructure while allowing lower fixed charges for low-use customers. The transcript ends during that discussion, before a final vote on SB 473 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• I understand additional costs we add to our employers are killing jobs.
• I UNDERSTAND ADDITIONAL COSTS WE ADD TO OUR EMPLOYERS ARE KILLING JOBS.
• So grateful to both houses for putting the cost-of-living adjustment in.
• SO GRATEFUL TO BOTH HOUSES FOR PUTTING THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT IN.
• Insurance is costing us a lot of money, and we have discussed affordability, but we shouldn't...

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Human Services and Labor budget hearing opened with Senate and Assembly co-chairs introducing members and naming secretaries for the record. The agencies covered included Human Services, Labor, Temporary and Disability Assistance, Children and Family Services, Veterans Services, Human Rights, Workers’ Compensation, the Welfare Inspector General, and the Public Employment Relations Board. Members then gave brief statements on their priorities for the upcoming budget negotiations. A major theme was affordability, with repeated discussion of child care, SNAP, housing, and worker supports. Senators and Assembly members highlighted the Senate and Assembly one-house proposals for a $500 million child care worker retention grant program, additional child care slots and subsidies, cost-of-living adjustments for human services workers, and expanded support for supportive housing, youth employment, HEAP, and energy affordability. Several members also emphasized food insecurity and SNAP-related issues, including funding to address payment errors, prevent penalties, expand SNAP education, and respond to expected federal changes. Labor-related issues included workers’ compensation fraud, wage theft enforcement, workplace violence, temporary disability insurance reform, and the creation of dedicated enforcement funding for the Department of Labor. Some members supported using workers’ compensation assessments or insurance-company-related funding to pay for anti-fraud efforts, while others preferred grants to district attorneys or broader DOL enforcement. There was also discussion of occupational health clinics, labor standards in any SEQRA changes, and expanding access to doctors in the workers’ compensation system. Veterans, child care, and public assistance fraud prevention were also discussed, including funding for veterans legal defense and mental health services, microchip/secure EBT cards to reduce skimming, and restoring or protecting various programs. No formal votes were taken; the hearing concluded with the chairs stating that the Senate, Assembly, and Executive would continue negotiations toward a final budget.

Transcript Highlights:

• At the same time, we have now driven up costs because the hospitals.
• And, you know, what should be the cost to the state to deliver that care?
• These costs will not be reflected in whatever rates are available for FY27.
• Forty-five individuals received allocation letters.
• After August, allocations became a monthly process.

Transcript Highlights:

• decisions, one of the primary considerations is whether they can access tax credits to offset their costs
• The first is that when the state allocates revenues to film tax credits, that revenue could have been
• Otherwise, they'll get 96% of the tax credit allocated, so it is completely up to them.
• Now, given the cost and the opportunity of incentives elsewhere.
• above-the-line costs and lowering the minimum wage. spend.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In establishing these rates, the cost of care from the provider cost of quality calculator and market
• However, even at this income level, some families are still not able to fully fund the cost of quality
• So I think More cost-efficient before- and after-school care.
• Meltzer, you said that 75% of your cost when you were a center director was workforce.
• as well, because this entire system is based on a shared cost.

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met with a quorum and focused on School Readiness, specifically the new provider reimbursement rates and the School Readiness Plus program. The chair gave an overview of how School Readiness is funded and administered, noting that the Legislature now sets county-based reimbursement rates using market and cost data, and that School Readiness Plus was created to help families who would otherwise fall off the subsidy “cliff” at 85% of state median income by extending assistance up to 100% of state median income. Panelists from the Children’s Forum, the Association of Early Learning Coalitions, and the Division of Early Learning described the programs as major workforce and family-support tools that help parents stay employed and help providers recruit and retain qualified staff. Testimony emphasized that higher reimbursement rates increase parental choice, help providers cover rising child care costs, and support better staffing and lower turnover. The panel also said School Readiness Plus is easing the pressure on families to turn down raises or promotions for fear of losing child care assistance, though uptake is still early because the program only began in late 2024 and is only available to current School Readiness families at redetermination. The Division of Early Learning reported about 275 children enrolled in School Readiness Plus as of March 10, with expenditures of about $161,420 through January 2025, and said participation is increasing. Members asked about the federal-state funding split, wait lists, reverted funds, coalition accountability, county-based rate differences, and whether the entrance eligibility threshold should be raised or shifted to state median income. The panel said roughly 70% of School Readiness funding is federal, about 4% has typically reverted in recent years, and the wait list is around 12,000 children, with reasons including income ineligibility, lack of available seats, and funding limits. They argued that raising the entrance threshold would expand access but would require additional funding, and they also discussed the need to reduce workforce barriers such as in-person testing and training requirements. The meeting ended with no formal action beyond the presentation and member discussion, and the subcommittee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The cost of the bond shall of probate. The cost of the bond shall of probate.
• And when we cost us money, then you just And when we cost us money, then you just And when we cost us
• We had the cost of living that would the cost of living that would the cost of living that would automatically
• That had you add 60 plus a cost of living. I you add 60 plus a cost of living.
• cost thing.

Bills: HJR 1, HB 9, HB 21, HB 26, HB 30, HB 37, HB 116, HB 630, HB 879, HB 913, HB 1151, HB 1318, HB 1593, HB 1899, HB 2703, HB 2809, HB 2890, HB 2970, HB 3307, HB 3526, HB 5092, SB 128, SB 203, SB 317, SB 393, SB 397, SB 644, SB 731, SB 801, SB 913, SB 1071, SB 1073, SB 1086, SB 1087, SB 1232, SB 1250, SB 1262, SB 1285, SB 1310, SB 1359, SB 1444, SB 1483, SB 1705, SB 1782, SB 1861, SB 1897, SB 1944, SB 2023, SB 2043, SB 2082, SB 2133, SB 2215, SB 2297, SB 2298, SB 2309, SB 2532, SB 2549, SB 2566, SB 2617, SB 2619, SB 2639, SB 2688, SB 2696, SB 2717, SB 2790, SB 2841, SB 2847, SB 2850, SB 2857, SB 2891, SB 2919, SB 2928, SB 2972, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 1, SB 260, SB 1506, SB 1637, HB 37, HB 109, HB 334, HB 1130, HB 1238, HB 1327, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 1689, HB 2081, HB 2809, HB 2884, HB 2890, HB 4215, HB 5092, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SB 644, SB 1086, SB 1230, SB 1310, SB 1361, SB 1553, SB 1778, SB 1790, SB 2344, SB 2460, SB 2515, SB 2600, SB 2747, SB 2751, SB 2785, SB 2790, SB 3047, SB 3048, SB 3050, SB 3051, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3056, SB 3058, SB 3061, HJR 1, HB 1130, HB 1689, HB 2884, HB 1393, HB 2559, HB 26, HB 3012, HB 1327, HB 109, HB 1238, HB 2890, HB 9, HB 4215, HB 2970, HB 37, HB 1899, HB 1593, HB 2607, HB 3526, HB 3810, HB 5092, HB 388, HB 2809, HB 1151, HB 913, HB 3307, HB 879, HB 116, HB 12, HB 2703, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 30, HB 21, HB 2712, HB 2692, HB 1633, HB 1318, HB 685, HB 630, HB 4753, HB 2742, HB 303, HB 198, HB 1535, HB 762, HB 148, HB 1520, HB 5061, HB 2286, HB 1606, HB 1041, HB 132, HB 11, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 63, SCR 12, SCR 39, SB 2023, SB 1310, SB 2972, SB 1073, SB 2847, SB 2532, SB 2619, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 810, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 507, SB 1434, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1122, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1436, SB 287, SB 1882, SB 393, SB 1791, SB 209, SB 2429, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 1085, SB 1975, SB 2717, SB 1262, SB 636, SB 2056, SB 884, SB 1200, SB 1845, SB 2458, SB 801, SB 3014, SB 3013, SB 758, SB 2797, SB 2076, SB 2876, SB 1640, SB 1449, SB 1181, SB 1359, SB 1234, SB 2926, SB 2841, SB 1528, SB 2891, SB 1854, SB 317, SB 1250, SB 2082, SB 1285, SB 1237, SB 2819, SB 629, SB 2608, SB 1602, SB 2009, SB 2460, SB 867, SB 640, SB 1698, SB 2680, SB 2994, SB 2747, SB 913, SB 1071, SB 1086, SB 1087, SB 1483, SB 1444, SB 1553, SB 1556, SB 1703, SB 2133, SB 2297, SB 2298, SB 2622, SB 2955, SB 2334, SB 1861, SB 2043, SB 1367, SB 2857, SB 128, SB 3058, SB 2044, SB 2363, SB 2565, SB 1888, SB 3048, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3036, SB 3057, SB 3056, SB 3043, SB 3050, SB 3063, SB 3035, SB 1790, SB 1778, SB 203, SB 3061, SB 2799, SB 2790, SB 2688, SB 2515, SB 1230, SB 2522, SB 2639, SB 2459, SB 3051, SB 2655, SB 2251, SB 1884, SB 2617, SB 2751, SB 2928, SB 2566, SB 1897, SB 1749, SB 1361, SB 2549, SB 2553, SB 2919, SB 1782, SB 1705, SB 2696, SB 1944, SB 2215, SB 644, SB 1232, SB 2850, HB 45, HB 48, HB 1261, HB 1465, HB 1778, HB 2596, HB 5238, HB 33, HB 1188, HB 210, HB 1022, HB 1458, HB 5560, HB 1240, HB 1950, HB 2027, HB 2768, HB 2788, HB 2791, HB 3146, HB 3698, HB 3699, HB 1893, HB 3700, HB 4850, HB 4187, HB 1397, HB 4885, HB 4804, HB 3751, HB 3611, HB 2775, HB 2061, HB 2003, HB 1729, HB 1242, HB 791, HB 2029, HB 647, HB 2522, HB 4738, HB 3033, HB 3594, HB 3474, HB 2563, HB 2802, HCR 90, SJR 87, SB 2969, SB 3073, SB 2497, SB 1798, SB 2603, SB 2607, SB 781, SJR 34, SB 17, SB 314, SB 455, SB 509, SB 529, SB 541, SB 693, SB 761, SB 963, SB 1023, SB 1968, SB 2122, SB 2308, SB 2371, SB 2420, SB 2544, SJR 87, SB 1285, SB 1359, SB 2857, SB 3073, HJR 1, HB 9, HB 21, HB 116, HB 913, HB 1151, HB 1899, HB 2970, HB 3307, SB 1073, SB 1310, SB 2532, SB 2619, SB 2847, SB 2972, SB 128, SB 2043, SR 393, SR 511, SR 518, SR 520, SB 314, SB 455, SB 761, SB 1023, SB 2122, SB 2371, SB 2420, SB 17, SB 509, SB 644, SB 1230, SB 1361, SB 1778, SB 1790, SB 2460, SB 2515, SB 2747, SB 2751, SB 2790, SB 3048, SB 3050, SB 3051, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3056, SB 3058, SB 3061, HB 37, HB 109, HB 1130, HB 1238, HB 1327, HB 1610, HB 1615, HB 1620, HB 1689, HB 2809, HB 2884, HB 2890, HB 4215, HB 5092, HCR 7, HCR 75, HCR 86, HCR 92, HCR 93, HCR 126, SB 1086, SB 1553, HJR 182, HB 4, HB 24, HB 46, HB 101, HB 146, HB 170, HB 214, HB 305, HB 426, HB 549, HB 551, HB 594, HB 722, HB 824, HB 1119, HB 1579, HB 2215, HB 2458, HB 2530, HB 2674, HB 2713, HB 2974, HB 3015, HB 3151, HB 3180, HB 3221, HB 3359, HB 3556, HB 4088, HB 4211, HB 4396, HB 4413, HB 4580, HB 4609, HB 4864, HB 5088, HB 5154, HB 5263, HB 2294, HJR 182, HB 4, HB 24, HB 46, HB 101, HB 146, HB 170, HB 214, HB 305, HB 426, HB 549, HB 551, HB 594, HB 722, HB 824, HB 1119, HB 1579, HB 2215, HB 2458, HB 2530, HB 2674, HB 2713, HB 2974, HB 3015, HB 3151, HB 3180, HB 3221, HB 3359, HB 3556, HB 4088, HB 4211, HB 4396, HB 4413, HB 4580, HB 4609, HB 4864, HB 5088, HB 5154, HB 5263, HB 2294

Keywords: constitutional amendment, property tax, ad valorem tax, tax exemption, tangible personal property, income-producing property, business personal property, equipment exemption, machinery, local government finance, school district revenue, county taxes, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, tax relief, commercial property, appraisal district, chief appraiser, rendition statement, property tax relief