Transcript Highlights:

• He knew it would be a pay cut.
• So in fairness, we pay up to 10 students. We pay per student.
• So we... and we have the cap on there so we're not paying any if they have 60 students, we're not paying
• Everybody pays the same, or subsidized, unsubsidized.
• So several years ago the state stopped paying for that.

Summary: The committee met at North Dakota State College of Science for a presentation from President Flanagan and campus leaders on the college’s mission, enrollment growth, workforce programs, facilities needs, and industry partnerships. Flanagan highlighted student success in national competitions, strong placement and retention, the college’s strategic plan, and new or expanding programs such as aviation maintenance, fire science, dental hygiene, community health worker, surgical technology, HVAC/plumbing, and precision agriculture. He also described the need for a new dorm and a remodel of the library into academic and allied health space, including a simulation center, to address capacity limits and support growth. Several committee members asked about program demand, faculty recruitment, pay competitiveness, and how the college shifts resources from lower-demand programs to high-demand ones. Industry partner Jim Albright of Comdell testified that the college has been essential to the local manufacturing workforce and that many employees and interns come from NDSCS. A major topic was dual credit. Flanagan said dual credit is important but financially challenging, noting that only a small share of dual credit students ultimately matriculate to NDSCS and that the college’s dual credit model is close to break-even. He explained that many dual credit credits are general education rather than CTE, and that the college pays instructors, supports high schools, and absorbs indirect costs. Williston State College President Bernal Herning added that his institution loses money on the front end but has shifted toward helping students complete associate degrees before high school graduation because many go directly to work after high school. Committee members questioned how dual credit is delivered, how instructors are qualified, and whether students are truly doing college-level work. The committee then received a University System presentation from Jamie Wilkie on the cost of delivering dual credit statewide. Wilkie explained the methodology used to allocate direct and overhead costs and said the analysis shows dual credit is not profitable at several institutions once tuition, instructor payments, and overhead are included. Members asked how much of the cost is borne by students, families, and the state, and whether K-12 funding should also be considered. Discussion also covered the difference between subsidized and unsubsidized dual credit, payments to high school teachers or schools, and the possibility of waiving tuition in the future. No votes were taken, and the committee mainly gathered information for the ongoing dual credit cost study.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're already paying uh $21,821.
• increasingly being told we need to pay increasingly being told we need to pay for<00:16:22.399><
• a gas tax of 31.8 cents a gallon, paying a gas tax of 31.8 cents a gallon, would<00:34:19.280> pay
• only pay only pay $113<00:34:31.119> in<00:34:31.440> gas<00:34:31.679> tax.
• <00:34:39.040> about8 miles a year, uh would only pay about8 miles a year, uh would only pay

Bills: HF2438

Keywords: transportation finance, transportation policy, MnDOT, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Department of Public Safety, Metropolitan Council, highway funding, trunk highway fund, county state-aid highway fund, municipal state-aid street fund, state aid roads, local roads, bridge funding, road construction, transit funding, passenger rail, freight rail, aviation, airport development, safe routes to school

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we've got to look at better ways to pay these young people to pay off this immense student loan
• issue when we were talking about what is the right level of pay, you know, what do you need to pay somebody
• It's not pay per se. That's part of it.
• Um, it's not just a pay issue.
• The city or the county pays the the settlement.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. ...and making them pay for a public service and no one else has to pay for.
• public service and no one else has to pay for.
• When you take a look at who pays, it's not just the taxpayer that's paying.
• When you take a look at who pays, it's not just the taxpayer that's paying.
• When you take a look at who pays, it's not just the taxpayer that's paying.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held the first of several hearings on the Governor’s May Revision for health care, with opening remarks focused on the state’s projected $12 billion deficit, looming federal Medicaid changes, and the potential impact on Medi-Cal, public health, reproductive health, and safety-net providers. Several members criticized the proposal as balancing the budget on vulnerable Californians, while others defended the need for cost containment and questioned the administration’s assumptions. The chair set ground rules for respectful, focused questioning and outlined three topics: the Medi-Cal proposals, Proposition 35, and Proposition 56. DHCS Director Michelle Baas presented the May Revision’s Medi-Cal package, saying the department’s budget totals $200.6 billion overall, including $45.2 billion General Fund, and that the proposals are intended to address rising caseloads, pharmacy costs, and managed care spending. She described proposed changes for adults with unsatisfactory immigration status, including a freeze on new full-scope enrollment for those 19 and older, $100 monthly premiums beginning in 2027, elimination of adult dental and long-term care coverage, removal of PPS/RAP payments to FQHCs and rural health clinics for that population, and a pharmacy rebate aggregator. Other proposals included eliminating certain OTC drug classes, removing GLP-1 coverage for weight loss, prior authorization and step therapy changes, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test, eliminating acupuncture as an optional benefit, allowing utilization management for hospice, raising the managed care minimum medical loss ratio to 90%, reducing PACE capitation rates toward the midpoint of the actuarial range, eliminating the skilled nursing facility workforce and quality incentive program, and suspending the SNF backup power requirement. The LAO said the revised Medi-Cal spending estimate is about $2.5 billion higher than the Governor’s Budget in the budget year, and that the increase appears driven more by higher per-enrollee costs than by caseload alone. The LAO said the budget solutions are concentrated in a few areas, are largely ongoing, and should be considered in light of federal uncertainty, but suggested the Legislature could explore alternatives such as more targeted income thresholds for the undocumented expansion and simpler asset-test rules. Department of Finance officials said the proposals are difficult but necessary to address a third consecutive deficit and rising Medi-Cal costs. Members then pressed the administration on the methodology and impacts of the proposals, especially the enrollment freeze, premiums, asset test, hospice controls, PACE reductions, and the elimination of benefits and provider payments. No votes or formal actions were taken at this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• they're only paying for the cost of their direct supervision and regulation.
• Everyone pays a minimum assessment of $250. All licensees pay that.
• In fact, a lot of people just pay the $250 in that pool of the 60%.
• the most, and the people with the lower incomes are paying less.
• the most, and the people with the lower incomes are paying less.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on State Administration heard a series of budget change proposals and trailer bill items, beginning with Housing and Community Development (HCD) requests. HCD sought permanent authority for seven existing temporary positions to support the HCD Connect IT system, and a separate proposal to fund implementation of eight 2025 housing-related laws with $4.2 million General Fund and 16 positions, plus $470,000 one-time General Fund. Members asked about how HCD Connect would interact with programs moving to the new Housing Development Finance Committee, and HCD also explained that the estimated cost to implement AB 1053 had been revised downward from about $6 million to $1.9 million because of shared implementation with CalHFA and the new committee structure. The committee also heard a Cal ICH proposal for $339,000 one-time General Fund to implement AB 678 on LGBTQ+ inclusive and culturally competent homelessness services, with testimony emphasizing data gaps and the need for a contract-based approach because HMIS cannot be changed unilaterally. The Department of Financial Protection and Innovation presented three continuation proposals: $15.34 million and 53 positions for the California Consumer Financial Protection Law program, $13.5 million and 51 positions for the Debt Collector Licensing Act program, and $49,000 ongoing for two positions in the broker-dealer/investment adviser education program. Members and the public raised concerns about the size and fairness of debt collector assessments and licensing fees, while DFPI explained the pro rata fee structure, the current license count, and how larger assessments fall on larger firms. Public testimony also supported retaining funding for the Student Loan Empowerment Network and requested funding for a franchise broker registration program. The committee also considered a mandate item involving suspension of a disclosure requirement related to property taxation, and trailer bill language from the Government Operations Agency to amend AB 91 on MENA demographic data collection, with the administration emphasizing data nondisclosure, protection of federal funding, and delayed implementation. The Secretary of State’s office then presented Help America Vote Act funding requests: $10.3 million for VoteCal maintenance and operations and $4.492 million for HAVA spending plans supporting voter education, training, accessibility, auditing, and county assistance. The office also requested $660,000 General Fund to implement AB 1392, which would make voter registration information for elected officials and candidates confidential, and explained the need to modify VoteCal and county election systems. The committee also heard requests to continue the Cal-Access Replacement System with $11.8 million General Fund and to continue the Notary Automation Program Replacement Project with $9.75 million from the Business Fees Fund. Members asked about total project costs, testing, data migration, and the expected November 2026 go-live date for Cal-Access replacement. Votes were taken on the vote-only items once quorum was established, and the committee approved the items considered. The final informational item was an overview from the California Arts Council, which highlighted the agency’s 50th anniversary, its statewide grantmaking, and the economic impact of arts funding. Council staff described Creative Corps, cultural districts, and the role of arts funding in local economies, while members and public witnesses urged increased support, including a request to raise local assistance grant funding to $50 million and to provide additional funding for cultural districts. Testimony emphasized the arts as economic infrastructure, community infrastructure, and a source of civic and cultural vitality across California.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then in 2023, we started Of the full benefit for every year they pay in.
• So it's affordable both the time you pay and in the time you claim benefits.
• Paying in, for every year you pay in, you earn 10% of the full benefit.
• It's a system with which we pay providers.
• So every quarter, the WACares Fund keeps certain premium income in our account to pay benefits and pay

Summary: The Pension Funding Council met on October 8 with introductions from council members and staff, then received a detailed presentation from the Office of the State Actuary on long-term economic assumptions and the state pension systems’ financial condition. OSA reported that the combined pension systems are currently 100% funded on a smoothed basis, with open plans above 95% funded, and that legacy Plan 1 systems remain on a path toward full funding under current policy. The actuaries recommended updating assumptions to 3% inflation, 3.5% general salary growth, and a 7.25% investment return, while keeping Plan 1 membership growth at 1%. They also explained asset smoothing, the role of recent strong investment returns, and the expected budget impacts of the recommended changes. Representatives from the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council and the State Investment Board offered supporting perspectives, generally describing the assumptions as reasonable and consistent with their own outlooks. The council also heard an overview of the Long-Term Services and Supports Trust Program (WACares) from DSHS and OSA. Program staff described the program’s social insurance structure, premium collection, benefit eligibility, and upcoming implementation milestones. OSA reported that the program’s first actuarial valuation showed a positive actuarial balance under the base scenario and recommended no change to the current 0.58% premium rate during the program’s early learning phase, noting that future changes would depend on experience and the program’s risk-management framework. OSA also said the recommendation would remain the same regardless of the outcome of the pending ballot measure affecting investment options. During public comment, a representative of the Washington State School Retirees Association urged continued work on Plan 1 funding and related legislation, while the Association of Washington Cities cautioned against increasing pension assumptions in a way that could raise future employer costs and reduce flexibility for current local government services. In action, the council adopted a motion to maintain the current long-term economic assumptions by a 4-2 vote, adopted the recommendation to keep the WACares premium rate at 0.58% by a 6-0 vote, and then elected Katie Chapman as council chair by unanimous vote. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• individual and notify them that you will not be paying them.
• And they are telling you what rate you have to pay and telling attorneys that your bank is not paying
• The rate of 3 percent is what we are paying currently.
• You have to pay money markets on checking accounts.
• There is nothing about who pays for it, and you know who will pay for these surveys?

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:20:47.440> a And what's missing for me is we pay a And what's missing for me is we pay
• >> What are we paying for, and what are we actually paying for it? And who's paying what?
• paying for it? paying for it?
• And And the And who's paying what?
• So, we we cannot dictate what they pay. So, we we cannot dictate what they pay.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board met on January 12, 2026, to approve the December 10, 2025 minutes and continue finalizing its findings and recommendations. Members reviewed findings on administrative inefficiencies, Medicaid and workforce participation under HR 1, Medicaid budget growth, rural health transformation fund development, and provider tax/state-directed payment changes. The board approved a motion to change “pilot” to “partnership” in the workforce-related recommendation, and also adopted a technical amendment clarifying overlapping HCBS services by removing reference to adult daycare waiver services and revising the language to focus on reducing duplication, simplifying provider contracting, and standardizing processes across programs. A separate technical correction was noted to change “DMS” to “DPH” in the rural health transformation finding, to be handled in the final edits. Several findings drew discussion but no final substantive vote during the meeting. On the rural health transformation fund, Dr. Berg said Kentucky had done well in federal funding and noted limits on what could be shared publicly, while Commissioner Lee said a public website had been created and recommended the department reference be changed to the Department for Public Health. Finding five prompted extended discussion about provider taxes, state-directed payment reductions under HR 1, and whether the board should address the relationship between actuarial studies, MCO payments, and actual provider reimbursement more directly. Senator Meredith and others argued for a broader, more transparent baseline review of rates across provider groups, while Commissioner Lee said CMS will require certain fee schedule comparisons to Medicare beginning July 1, 2026, and that quarterly expenditure reports already go to LRC. The board did not finish resolving finding five during the meeting and agreed to return to it after staff prepared more explicit language. Members also discussed the possibility of an all-payers claims database as a better way to understand what is being paid across payers and services. No final vote on the full findings package was taken in the portion of the meeting provided, but the board did adopt the noted amendments and continued working through the remaining language.

Transcript Highlights:

• Per our statute, the employers pay the PHIP contribution from the same source of funding as they pay
• of what we had to pay per member. of what we had to pay per member.
• We don't pay everybody pretty much what they pay in other states.
• We don't pay everybody pretty much what they pay in other states.
• We don't pay everybody pretty much what they pay in other states.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:50:26.359> us the feds opt to pay us the feds opt to pay us 80%<00:50:28.119> or
• contribute towards effectively paying contribute towards effectively paying the<01:11:14.679>
• <01:13:12.280> them $100 we would pay them $100 we would pay them $50<01:13:14.239> and
• question but regarding private pay question but regarding private pay insurers<01:27:25.800>
• And so we're going to pay them now.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Division III held an informational hearing on Medicaid, Medicare, Choices for Independence, and related financing, while postponing nursing facility financing and the county cap discussion to a later date. DHHS officials Ann Landry, Jonathan Ballard, and Medicaid Director Henry Litman provided an overview of Medicaid’s role, noting it is a federal-state partnership with state-specific eligibility and benefits, and emphasizing that Medicaid is a major funding and programmatic support for other DHHS initiatives. They also distinguished Medicaid from Medicare and explained that Medicaid funding is not the same as grant funding, though some providers may also receive federal grants through other channels. The presentation focused on New Hampshire’s relatively small Medicaid program and why it differs from national averages. Officials said about 184,000 residents are covered, roughly one in seven Granite Staters compared with one in five nationally, and attributed the difference largely to the state’s higher per-capita income and older population. They highlighted that about 65% of Medicaid-enrolled adults in New Hampshire are working, that only 22% of births are covered by Medicaid versus 42% nationally, and that the state’s uninsured rate is lower than the national rate. Members asked about covered services, income limits, federal matching rates, and the names of optional eligibility groups; staff explained that New Hampshire offers the optional groups discussed, with matching rates varying by category, including 90% for Granite Advantage and certain other groups, and 65% for children above the required level. A substantial portion of the hearing covered eligibility rules and recent policy changes. Officials reviewed the history of Medicaid, including HCBS waivers, the CFI program, Katie Beckett, the Olmstead decision, the ACA, and the end of continuous enrollment after the public health emergency. They also discussed the 2023 legislative expansion of postpartum coverage from 60 days to 12 months and child eligibility changes. In response to questions, DHHS said it is tracking utilization and costs for the postpartum expansion and reported that many maternal deaths occur after the prior 60-day coverage period, often involving substance use disorder or suicide; they said the longer coverage is intended to improve access to treatment and prevention. The committee also walked through household-income examples, clarified that Medicaid eligibility is based on household income and categorical rules, and confirmed that Granite Advantage ends at 138% of the federal poverty level unless another categorical basis applies. No votes were taken, and the hearing remained informational.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, since 1979 through today, so for the... ...pay the differential.
• , the single or family starting to pay for part of their medical plan.
• The top concern was more competitive pay.
• And the majority of those job openings pay between $20 and $24.99 per hour.
• To pay for the increase, the member would pay an increased contribution amount.

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are paying twice to educate the same student.
• price, they would have had to pay $5.9 million.
• We pay benefits in all 77 counties of the state.
• This is their total compensation that they pay into TrS.
• It's not designed that way, so they didn't pay for it, right?

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:19:00.799> for I have no problem with them paying for I have no problem with them paying
• <00:19:05.120> for saying the taxpayers should pay for saying the taxpayers should pay for
• , or for other people to chip in to pay for their care?
• <00:26:10.080> for purported savings and not paying for purported savings and not paying for
• <00:36:36.200> transgender a crime to pay for elective transgender a crime to pay for elective

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:00 Roll Call: 00:00:08 SB 169: 00:01:07 SB 02: 00:05:56 Discussion in Opposition to SB 02: 00:19:22, 958, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee first took up Senate Bill 169, which would expand the Attorney General’s and Kentucky State Police’s authority to use administrative subpoenas in child exploitation investigations. Senator Danny Carroll and Attorney General’s office staff said the bill updates existing law to reflect modern online platforms, adding social networking companies, mobile payment services, and cloud storage services so investigators can obtain limited account-holder information tied to online child exploitation cases. Members raised no opposition, and the committee approved SB 169 17-0 with favorable expression. The committee then heard Senate Bill 2, which would prohibit the use of public funds for certain cosmetic or elective procedures in correctional facilities, including gender-affirming surgeries, and would also affect some hormone-related treatment. Senator Mike Wilson and supporters said the bill was intended to stop such procedures from being authorized by memo rather than regulation and to ensure taxpayer money is not used for elective care. Several members asked whether any such surgeries had occurred in Kentucky; Wilson said none had been approved, and he emphasized the bill was about public funding, not general medical care. Supporters argued the state should not pay for elective procedures, while opponents said the bill targeted a tiny population and could create constitutional problems. Opponents included incarcerated and advocacy voices, a psychologist, and legal advocates, who said gender-affirming care is medically necessary for some patients, that withholding it can cause serious mental health harm, and that similar restrictions have faced court challenges. One speaker described personal harm from being denied hormone therapy while incarcerated. Another warned the bill could violate the Eighth Amendment and lead to costly litigation. After debate, the committee moved to vote on SB 2, with members giving explanations both for and against, but the transcript cuts off before the final roll call result is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• THEY ARE PAYING TUITION. THEY AND THEIR FAMILIES ALSO PAY TAXES. THEY ARE EARNING THIS EDUCATION.
• IF YOU OWN A BUSINESS, YOU ARE PAYING TAXES. IF YOU USE OUR TOLLWAYS, YOU PAY TAXES.
• IF YOU BUY SOMETHING AT ANY STORE, YOU ARE PAYING TAXES. IF YOU WORK, YOU ARE PAYING TAXES.
• WE ARE ALLOWING THEM TO PAY THE SAME RATE THAT OTHER STUDENTS BORN HERE ARE PAYING, OF COURSE NO FAULT
• THESE ARE FAMILIES WHO PAY TAXES.

Keywords: immigration enforcement, unauthorized alien entry, death penalty, capital felonies, 287G agreements, in-state tuition, undocumented students, DACA, TPS, Venezuelan immigrants, law enforcement funding, immigration detention, federal preemption, equal protection, constitutional challenges, immigration status determination, school resource officers, conscientious objection, clergy protection, teacher protection

Summary: The Florida House passed two immigration enforcement bills during a special session. Senate Bill 4C creates new state offenses for unauthorized alien entry/reentry into Florida and mandates the death penalty for unauthorized aliens convicted of capital felonies. Senate Bill 2C establishes a state immigration enforcement board, provides $300+ million for local law enforcement immigration cooperation, creates a $1,000 bonus program for officers participating in federal immigration enforcement, and repeals in-state tuition for undocumented students effective July 1, 2025. Multiple amendments were proposed but failed, including protections for Venezuelan TPS holders, DACA recipients, students in critical professions, and conscientious objection provisions for clergy and teachers. Debate included constitutional concerns about federal preemption, equal protection violations, and mandatory death penalty provisions. The session also included a memorial urging DHS to provide 287G agreement training opportunities.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Kesha-Pai? Chair. Yes, please proceed. I love our tourists.
• “And have really good-paying jobs. So I just wanted to say thank you.
• Growth needs to pay for growth.
• So instead of paying your developer impact fees at the time the permit is issued, now we're going to
• So instead of paying your developer impact fees at the time the permit is issued, now we're going to

Bills: HB2107, HB2588, HB2946, HB2950

Keywords: SNAP, nutrition assistance, fast food, vitamins, waiver, food policy, municipal planning, homeowner association, building permits, single-family home, property rights, design standards, development fees, municipalities, infrastructure, public services, annual reporting, property development, tourism improvement area, TIA

Transcript Highlights:

• Would their workers' comp benefits now be reduced by whatever the private policy pays?
• I mean, when it comes to what should an employer have to pay?
• No, the employer is paying what they needed to pay.
• He still has to pay back Medicare.
• He still has to pay back Medicaid and all the other entities that have paid for this treatment.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• it's trying to uh still achieve paying it's trying to uh still achieve paying for<01:18:51.600><
• uh with with paying U paying money to uh with with one<02:36:28.120> year<02:36:28.279> in
• the Statewide average the which now pay the Statewide average the pay<03:54:44.000> pay<03:54
• :44.199> the pay pay the pay pay the Statewide<03:54:45.840> uh<03:54:46.000> education
• the value that's available for paying the value that's available for paying for<05:27:25.718>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then you will have to pay back.
• how long it's going to take you to pay how long it's going to take you to pay down<00:48:23.680>
• Thank you. price we're going to pay. That is the price we're going to pay.
• be expected to pay back over time. be expected to pay back over time.
• you couldn't pay me money to go back. you couldn't pay me money to go back.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:37.800> for because we need the revenue to pay for because we need the revenue to pay
• And as Miss Madden pointed out, it's not that lower-income people don't pay taxes; they pay them in the
• <00:18:01.720> rent about 17% % of um those who pay rent about 17% % of um those who pay rent
• <00:18:04.360> the like of rent goes toward paying the like of rent goes toward paying the
• provide telecommunications or pay provide telecommunications or pay Television Television Television

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So during the pay plan, did we not give you all a million dollars to meet that?
• No, sir, you wasn't increased during the pay plan.
• Within the pay plan, we can research that and see if they received money, but the pay plan itself, the
• But I know the pay plan itself, the class and comp act, would not have provided them anything.
• Unless you're paying 30 employees, 10,000 each. Yeah, all the appropriations.

Keywords: 1204, all