Transcript Highlights:

• those costs and execute that.
• allocation of ancillary services.
• I think it was close to a billion dollars in cost on that.
• The prior requirement that you referenced is a part of that same allocation. study.
• or does the cost vary widely between the 18 projects? I wouldn't say it varies widely.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Both the state at the PED level and school districts get allocation Title II allocations, and they're
• And it wouldn't just be the administrative costs, there would be other costs related to supporting the
• Cost us a lot of money.
• Rate cost, right?
• for their administrative costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• IT IS A 75, 25 PERCENT COST SHARE.
• IT IS A THREE YEAR COST REIMBURSEMENT AND VARIES BASED ON THE PROJECT TYPE.
• THAT WILL INCREASE WITH THE RECENT ALLOCATION.
• THIS IS THE RECENT ALLOCATION.
• THERE WERE 11 ADDITIONAL DIRECT ALLOCATION MADE TO WHAT HUD REFERS TO AS ENTITLEMENT COMMUNITIES.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And, of course, the rising cost for commodities, food, medicine, utilities, etc.
• In statute, it requires the health plans to reimburse for the cost of those audits.
• In statute, it requires the health plans to reimburse for the cost of those audits.
• Were we off in enrollee per cost? Was that—were we under on an administrative cost?
• Both trust funds are allocated within the investigative service budget entity.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The total project cost is $11.1 million. The construction cost is $9.19 million.
• Pro total project cost is $11.1 million. Pro total project cost is $11.1 million.
• The construction cost is $9.19 million. The construction cost is $9.19 million.
• control costs. control costs.
• $45 million project cost. $45 million project cost.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's going to add some additional cost.
• So, the total cost of everything cost.
• Again, the cost estimates are based on just like any traditional project we do—cost estimates of all
• Again the cost estimates done before.
• reallocation from the county allocation reallocation from the county allocation pool<00:31:55.360

Keywords: 00:02 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:45 Approval of Minutes 01:01 Information Items 06:25 Project Rpt from Postsecondary Institutions-KCTCS 10:50 Project Rpt from Finance and Admin Cabinet 18:08 Lease Rpt from Finance and Admin Cabinet 27:12 Rpt from OFM – KY Infrastructure Authority 33:56 Rpt from OFM – CED EDF Grants 47:20 Rpt from OFM – Office of Financial Mgmt 56:53 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The committee first handled routine business, including approval of the February meeting minutes and several information items. Those items covered university equipment purchases, school district and transportation-related debt issuances, Northern Kentucky University’s planned construction-manager/general-contractor delivery method for the medical examiner/crime lab relocation project, a lease-space advertisement, postsecondary asset preservation allocations, and lease-law compliance reports. Members then discussed the Northern Kentucky crime lab project in more detail; staff explained that the memorandum of agreement would cover the construction portion while the lease would cover operations, and members were told the project should move forward without procurement problems. The committee approved a Kentucky Community and Technical College System project to modify the fire academy maintenance building after the related dormitory project was set aside because of major cost overruns. KCTCS said the dormitory would be about $3 million over budget, so it would not be bid; instead, the maintenance building would be expanded to add showers and restroom/locker facilities, bringing that project from $2 million to about $3.2 million. The committee also approved a Transportation Cabinet project for the Hardin County I-65 southbound commercial motor vehicle station relocation, with members asking about the estimate, the lack of a direct prior example, and the fact that the loadometer equipment itself would be purchased separately and was not included in the construction estimate. Finance and Administration Cabinet lease items were then considered. The committee approved a Department of Public Advocacy lease in Christian County and a Transportation Cabinet vehicle regulation lease in Kenton County, both negotiated down from initial asking prices and both including utilities. Two lease modifications were reported without action: a Department of Revenue fit-up in Jefferson County and an expanded vehicle regulation lease in Adair County. Members also approved a package of Kentucky Infrastructure Authority items, including four loans and six Cleaner Water Program grant reallocations, covering sewer and water projects such as MSD’s Patty’s Run flood pumping station, Paducah-McCracken County’s wastewater treatment plant, Mount Washington’s lift station replacement, and Eminence’s wastewater plant expansion. Finally, the committee heard a batch of Kentucky Product Development Initiative economic development grants and approved the action items in one vote. The projects included due diligence and infrastructure work for industrial and site-development projects in multiple counties, with local match requirements and KEDFA approvals described for each. The committee also received three line-item water grants from House Bill 1 that required no action, and the meeting ended after the grant presentations and approvals.

Transcript Highlights:

• DHS would be responsible for all contractual costs associated with out-of-state placement and services
• Central Arizona Project water that is currently allocated to the State Land Department to parcels of
• central Arizona project water that is currently allocated to adopt a process for allocating central
• Arizona project water that is currently allocated to the state land department to parcels of state land
• Arizona residents, whether they're voters or not, have had a substantial impact from the increased cost

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The meeting was a rapid review of a very large bill package, with the chair repeatedly asking staff to keep descriptions high level and many bills placed on third-read consent or consent calendars. A major theme was artificial intelligence: bills would require minors to be told when they are interacting with AI, allow AI-assisted divorce arbitration by consent, create an AI education program, privilege certain AI communications, and require K-12 instruction on ethical and practical AI use. Other education measures addressed school district superintendents, health instruction, anti-Semitism prohibitions, fetal development standards, and school safety, including a bill allowing concealed firearms on school grounds under specified conditions. Several health and public safety bills were also discussed. These included funding and oversight measures for childhood cancer research, nursing care complaint timelines, firefighter cancer data collection, limits on pharmacy penalties, and a bill making it a felony to administer abortion-inducing drugs without consent. Members also heard bills on overtime wage enforcement, domestic violence evidence standards in parenting cases, probation limits for dangerous crimes against children, and a measure expanding manslaughter liability to online encouragement of teen suicide. One sponsor strongly opposed a provisional medical licensing bill for foreign-trained applicants, while other sponsors emphasized rural health access, nurse anesthetist reimbursement parity, and the need for a dental board member who is an oral surgeon. A large portion of the meeting focused on water, land, energy, and state agency oversight. Bills would streamline or change rules for small modular reactors, new power plants, water supply determinations, groundwater transportation fees, water hauling, and state land disposition. Members also considered measures affecting the State Land Department, including audits, oversight boards, continuation, land-use maps for data centers and energy projects, and rules for mineral leases and solar or wind siting. Other topics included wildlife and ranching, Mexican wolf policy, annexation, housing and development incentives, transportation and towing rules, digital driver licenses, and a proposed four-year moratorium on municipal and county fee, tax, and utility-rate increases, which drew questions about stakeholder input and the impact on enterprise funds and local utilities. No recorded roll-call votes were taken in the transcript; most items were simply presented, briefly discussed, and left on consent or calendar status, with one bill noted as held in rules and another pulled for further discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• before you start seeing those uh cost before you start seeing those uh cost shifts<00:17:10.000>
• <00:18:34.080> of the cost of housing, but on the cost of the cost of housing, but on the
• And the third thing is the cost chains. And the third thing is the cost of<00:20:28.080> labor.
• But how changes are happening in land costs, in labor costs, and certainly lumber costs, in looking at
• But how changes are happening in land costs, in labor costs, and certainly lumber costs, in looking at

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• high cost procedure.
• If we don't incur those costs, it does generate a savings pool.
• Real quickly is an overview of the budget allocation summary.
• It shows strong cost efficiency.
• We asked to compare to the cost of more D been services for children are how we look at the costs for

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill allows the Department of Housing to allocate tax credits for projects that are wholly located
• year, and the amount of the credits allocated for the project.
• In rural communities, housing projects face a persistent feasibility gap due to higher per-unit costs
• But secondly, we think the LIHTC model is inefficient, so it's prone to cost inflation.
• My firm has been allocated federal and state low-income housing tax credits over the last 40 years.

Bills: HB2388, HB2804, HB2926

Keywords: HB2388, Arizona Commerce Authority, ACA, small modular reactor, SMR, nuclear energy, advanced nuclear, data center, data centers, economic development, study, appropriation, general fund, jobs, wages, tax revenue, broadband, infrastructure, secondary businesses, tertiary businesses

Summary: The committee began with short presentations highlighting historic sites in Prescott, including the Arizona Pioneer Home and the First Territorial Governor’s Mansion/Charlotte Hall Museum, framed as ways to showcase rural districts and Arizona history. Members discussed the importance of using committee time to feature district-specific projects and tourism assets before moving to legislation. The main action was on HB 2804, a bill creating a state rural development and housing tax credit tied to the federal low-income housing tax credit for projects in counties under 800,000 population. Supporters, including the sponsor, the mayor of Flagstaff, housing developers, and other local officials, argued the credit would help finance affordable housing for seniors, veterans, and low-income residents in rural areas where projects are otherwise not feasible. Opponents, including the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, argued the program is inefficient, difficult to police, and disproportionately benefits intermediaries and developers. After extended questioning and debate about whether the bill truly helps veterans and seniors, the committee passed HB 2804 on a 7-0 vote. The committee then heard HB 2388, which directs the Arizona Commerce Authority to study the economic benefits of small modular reactors and data centers and report findings to the governor and legislature. The sponsor described it as a data-gathering measure to inform future policy, while supporters said it could help assess energy and job impacts, especially for Hispanic workers. One member suggested adding information on utility-rate impacts and waste/storage issues through amendment. The bill passed on a 6-1 vote, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• OR THE'S EFFORTS ON THE EAA RESERVOIR AND IT WILL EXCEL OUR ABILITY TO USE THESE MORE QUICKLY THE COST
• OUR COST ESTIMATE IS 205. BIG DIFFERENCE IN COST. AND IT IS ALL FEDERAL MONEY.
• AND WITH A LOT OF THE FUNDING THE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT GRANT WE WERE ABLE TO HELP OFFSET SOME COSTS
• THAT IS WHY A PLACE LIKE TALLAHASSEE OVER HERE YOU CAN BUY HOUSE FOR $200,000 THAT SAME HOUSE WILL COST
• THEY ARE ALREADY ALLOCATED AND TAPPED OUT. AND THIS HELPED GROW THE WATER HIGH.

Transcript Highlights:

• And at the same time... ...it can cost up to $250 million.
• Do you have an understanding of what that might cost?
• it would cost the CSU system.
• I don't believe it'll cost that much because a lot of individuals receive other grants.
• “You know, the bigger problem is the tuition costs are out of control.

Summary: The committee first adopted its 2025-26 rules on a 7-0 roll call, then approved three consent items—AB 88, AB 240, and AB 313—on a due-pass motion to Appropriations. The hearing then moved to AB 648, which would give community college districts the same zoning authority as the UC and CSU systems to build student and staff housing on property they own or lease. The author and supporters argued the bill would help address severe housing insecurity and homelessness among community college students, while opponents and some members raised concerns about local control, zoning exemptions, and the impact on nearby communities. AB 648 passed the committee on a 5-2 vote and was sent to the Local Government Committee. The committee next heard AB 466, which would require California Community Colleges and CSU campuses to provide organ and tissue donor registry information during student orientation, and request UC campuses to do the same. Supporters shared personal stories about transplants and donation, saying college orientation is a good opportunity to increase registrations. Some members worried about information overload during orientation and suggested campuses have flexibility in how they present the material, but the bill advanced on a unanimous 7-0 vote to Appropriations. AB 326 followed, proposing campus-by-campus external audits of the CSU every three years and public release of the audits. The author, faculty supporters, and a student argued that systemwide audits do not provide enough transparency about how money is spent at individual campuses, citing examples of financial mismanagement and fee increases. CSU opposed the bill, saying it already conducts annual consolidated external audits and that campus-level audits would add cost without added benefit. After extensive discussion about transparency, audit scope, and implementation, the bill passed 6-1 to Appropriations. The committee then took up AB 335, which would create a California Black-Serving Institution Grant Program to support Black student success and broader underserved student services; supporters emphasized persistent equity gaps and low completion rates, while an opponent argued the bill needed to be carefully amended to comply with Proposition 209 and equal protection requirements. The transcript ends during that item’s discussion, before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• As I mentioned earlier, we're about halfway through that, allocating that to water systems.
• And so we're able to over-allocate, which is what we call binding commitments, knowing that it may be
• Then you know where the hot spots are at the water leak is fixed, how much it costs.
• So, I do utilities, and during COVID, costs really, really increased—doubled.
• Only the cost, but the supply chain. We are still waiting on some of these other projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• huge cost savings because they're not actually...
• So cost savings, some minimal cost savings internally, but just presenting it differently to the public
• So that we could lower their costs and get their ROI.
• The cost of the program would apply to all 11.
• Again, the idea is keeping a cost of the program in terms of what it actually costs to deliver programs

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So cost saving, some minimal cost savings internally, but just presenting it differently to the public
• That's really important, as well as those high-cost programs. ...as well as those high-cost programs.
• That's reflected in the cost of the program.
• The cost of the program would apply to all 11.
• Again, the idea is keeping a cost of the program in terms of what it actually costs to deliver programs

Summary: The committee met to discuss higher education funding and capital building policy. Members first heard an update from NDUS Deputy Commissioner Lisa Johnson on low-producing academic programs. She described a proposed board policy using a five-year rolling window and thresholds of fewer than 10 undergraduate graduates or fewer than 5 graduate graduates, with programs flagged for three consecutive review periods going to the board. Possible outcomes would include continuation, continuation with modifications, inactivation, or termination. Members asked about how the review would account for program costs, service to other students, workforce demand, and the difference between inactivation and termination. Johnson said the board would consider broader factors and that campuses already do detailed program analysis. Several members also asked about cost savings and staffing impacts from program terminations, and Johnson said the board would try to provide more information later. The committee then received a report on the Capital Building Fund from Jamie Wilkie. He reviewed the program’s history, matching requirements, and recent uses, noting that about $334 million in state and matching dollars has been invested overall, with most going to deferred maintenance and extraordinary repairs. Members discussed whether the program is reducing deferred maintenance and requested updated systemwide data on deferred maintenance and campus space utilization. Wilkie said the board is considering a new study to update deferred maintenance figures, which are based on information more than 12 years old. He also reported that several institutions have used current biennium funds for projects such as residence hall renovations, health sciences housing, generators, and building repairs. Later, the committee began a detailed walkthrough of a draft bill that would replace the current higher education funding formula with an FTE-based model and also revise the capital building fund structure. The draft would use fall enrollment FTEs, add completion incentives for degrees in in-demand fields, and create a separate research funding component for UND and NDSU tied to doctoral completions and external research expenditures. Members raised concerns about the use of older data in the formula, the treatment of waivers, the weighting of professional and health sciences programs, and the use of CIP codes to define CTE and education incentives. The bill draft would also combine capital building fund tiers, broaden eligible uses for deferred maintenance and legislatively authorized projects, change matching requirements, repeal the old formula chapter and the capital pool, and transfer funds from the Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund into the capital building fund. No final votes were taken during the portion provided; the meeting was primarily discussion and review.

Transcript Highlights:

• cost of special education. cost of special education.
• money that's allocated. money that's allocated.
• costs? costs?
• the average cost per pupil, or the estimated cost per pupil.
• <01:27:20.960> is cost but once you know that cost is cost but once you know that cost is

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission met to continue its study of the cost of special education, with the chair emphasizing that the group needs to narrow its focus over the coming year toward specific cost drivers, including the IEP process, Medicaid, charter schools, and EFAs. Members reviewed a draft first report due November 1 and agreed it would be a brief synopsis of prior meetings, with minutes attached. The September 30, 2025 minutes were amended to correct the number of federally funded department staff from 234 to 23, and to revise language about Senator Sullivan’s comments so they reflected concerns about IEP advocates and fees charged to families rather than support for the concept. The amended minutes were then approved unanimously, with abstentions noted for members who were absent. The main presentation focused on how special education costs are handled for students attending charter schools. The DOE representative said there are 804 students with disabilities in charter schools across 88 of the state’s 176 districts, and that the district of residence remains responsible for all services and costs. She explained that students must meet IDEA criteria through district evaluation and parent consent, and that services are determined through individual IEP meetings rather than by a blanket charter-school decision. Members asked how those costs are tracked, whether any students are merely “monitored,” and whether districts separately identify charter-school special education expenses; the answer was that most districts fold those costs into their overall special education budget, though some may break them out as a line item. The discussion then turned to transportation and mileage costs for staff providing services at charter schools. Testimony indicated that districts may use their own staff, contract staff, or contract with a charter school for certified services, and that travel costs are often either built into contracts or absorbed as part of staff time rather than separately reimbursed. Members questioned whether mileage is reimbursed when staff travel to distant charter schools and whether those costs can be isolated in district budgets; the response was that practices vary by district and are not usually broken out by special education function. Several members argued this makes it difficult to determine the true cost of delivering special education, especially given New Hampshire’s model in which the district of residence pays regardless of where the charter school is located. The chair noted the complexity of the system and compared it to the state’s separate tuition and transportation approach for career and technical education centers.

Transcript Highlights:

• County cost allocation plans. Federal pass-through.
• SNAP outreach plan D9 county cost SNAP outreach plan D9 county cost allocation<01:13:21.040>
• cost.
• Grants. mandated costs. mandated costs.
• Program costs, 15; 4.0 FTE. Program costs, 15; 4.0 FTE.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The House convened with a quorum, approved the prior journal, and heard several brief recognitions before moving to business. Members welcomed foster care advocates for Child Abuse Prevention Month, Girl Scouts visiting the Capitol, and participants in Black Maternal Health Week, with remarks emphasizing foster youth voice, leadership development, and the need for culturally competent maternal health care and doula/midwife support. The chamber then took up House Joint Resolution 1026, honoring former Governor Roy Romer and designating a portion of I-25 as the Governor Roy Romer Memorial Highway. Supporters highlighted Romer’s long public service, his work on education and infrastructure, and his role in major state projects. A proposed amendment to strike the word “memorial” was withdrawn, the House suspended the rules to allow Romer to speak from the well, and Romer offered remarks about legislative collegiality and the importance of democracy and listening to opposing views. House Joint Resolution 1026 was adopted on a 60-0 vote, with four excused and one absent. After a brief recess, the House returned to special orders and resumed reading House Bill 1410 at length, continuing through extensive appropriations language for the Department of Human Services, including child welfare, youth services, Medicaid-related transfers, SNAP and benefits administration, and other funding line items. No final action on House Bill 1410 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I KNOW THAT YOU WENT OVER THE HOURS BUT, WHAT SPECIFIC COSTS ANALYZED TO DETERMINE THE COST OF REIMBURSEMENT
• THESE EXPENDITURES REPRESENT WHAT SERVICES ARE CURRENTLY COSTING NOT WHAT IT SHOULD OR COULD COST.
• >> IF YOU NOTICE AND THE GEA CORE FUNDING IS ALLOCATED.
• LOW COST ET CETERA THAT ALLOWS US TO BE MORE PREDICTABLE.
• I THOUGHT I CAN'T SEE YOUR COST ALLOCATION PLAN OR WHERE YOU'RE SPENDING ON PREVENTION IT LEADS ME TO

Transcript Highlights:

• the legacy land trust from a 10% allocation to a 5% allocation.
• cost of living adjustment in the bill? cost of living adjustment in the bill?
• what the cost of living adjustment but what the cost of living adjustment<00:25:19.200> would
• I mean, money gets allocated.
• because of the cost of infrastructure. because of the cost of infrastructure.

Bills: HB1719, HB1742, HB1737, HB2049, HB1725, HB1726, HB1738, HB1799, HB1700

Keywords: housing crisis, manufactured homes, factory-built housing, zoning, relocatable housing units, farm employee housing, agriculture, Hawaii Revised Statutes, agricultural districts, land use, regulation, renewable energy, community development, housing, affordable housing, real estate, state regulation, building codes, construction, permitting

Summary: The joint public hearing covered several housing-related bills and one building-code measure. HB 1719 would make manufactured homes a permitted use by right on residentially zoned lots in the urban district, HB 1742 would authorize self-contained relocatable housing units with restrictions, and HB 1737 would clarify that a farm dwelling in an agricultural district may include an accessory employee housing structure. Testimony on these bills was overwhelmingly supportive from groups including Hawaii Realtors, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Housing Hawaii’s Future, the Modular Building Institute, the Hawaii Farmers Union, and others, with a few agencies offering comments. No one testified in opposition on HB 1719 or HB 1742, while HB 1737 drew one opposition and one comment in addition to broad support. No votes were taken during the hearing segment provided. A major portion of the hearing focused on HB 2049, which restructures the conveyance tax into a marginal-rate system and changes how the revenue is allocated, including funding for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the rental housing revolving fund, while also affecting the legacy land conservation fund. Supporters, including DHHL, Hawaii Appleseed, Aahu Youth Action Board, Hawaii YIMBY, and others, argued the bill would help Native Hawaiian housing and, for most transactions, function as a tax cut. Opponents, including NAP Hawaii, Hawaii Realtors, Hawaii Land Trust, Mhai Land Trust, and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, objected to using conveyance tax as a revenue-generating tool and raised concerns about higher upfront costs and reduced funding for other housing uses. Committee members and staff discussed the bill’s revenue estimates, the reduced percentage but higher cap for the land conservation fund, the effect on rental housing funding, and the bill’s cost-of-living adjustment language; staff said a line-by-line comparison of the current and proposed tax structure would be provided before decision-making. The hearing also took up HB 1725, which would extend the state building code adoption cycle from two years to six years, apply the IRC to triplexes and fourplexes, allow counties to adopt more or less stringent amendments, and appropriate funds for code adoption work. Most testimony supported the bill, with advocates saying the current process is unmanageable, too resource-intensive, and creates confusion because state and county codes can diverge; supporters said a longer cycle would improve clarity and allow more focused review. The International Code Council and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers opposed the measure, warning that delaying adoption could have negative consequences and urging the committee to let an existing statewide code-adoption strategy proceed first. Members asked about sequencing, county implementation, and whether the longer cycle would create catch-up problems, but no action was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And yet we see projects increasing cost 20, 40%, 50% year over year.
• you don't do all those things right, projects will cost more.
• It's a function of labor costs and, and everything else.
• drivers, such as the cost of the pipe, the labor contracts, and, you know, the land acquisition costs
• , engineering costs, and that, and that's my point.

Bills: SB 7

Keywords: water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability