Bills: SB 8, SB 1, SB 2, SB 5, SB 10, HB27, HB7, HB17, HB1, SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, HB20, HB18, HB7, HB17, HB1, HB20, HB18, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4, SB1, SR85, SR87, SB8, SB5, SB2, SB10, HB27

Keywords: sex designation, restroom access, civil penalties, private civil right of action, women's privacy, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, disaster relief, flood preparedness, emergency funding, local government support, meteorological forecasting, abortion, healthcare, jurisdiction, civil action, qui tam

Bills: SB2175, SB2410, SB2080, SB2276, SB2277, SB2282, SB2413, SB2425, SB2491, HB2315, HB2562, HB1532, HB1857, HB2209, HB1961, HB2343, HB2160, HB2505, HB1537, HB1562, HB1731, HB1853, HB1973, HB1974

Keywords: environmental protection, waste management, disposable electronic smoking devices, plastic pollution, lithium-ion batteries, public health, electronic smoking devices, e-liquids, certification, FDA compliance, penalties, directory, mental health, telepsychology, interjurisdictional compact, psychology regulation, LGBTQ+ youth, access to care, professional licensing, surgical assistant

Summary: The committee opened a hearing on multiple health-related bills and first took up HB 2315, which would create a Department of Health pilot program allowing eligible employees to defer unused vacation leave in exchange for a payout to help with home purchase assistance. The Department of Health testified in support, saying the proposal could aid recruitment and retention, and United Public Workers also supported it as a creative, cost-effective benefit that could help employees become first-time homebuyers. The chair likewise praised the department’s effort, and there were no questions or opposition before the committee moved on. The committee then heard HB 2562 on workplace violence in health care settings. The Department of Health said it preferred requiring licensed hospitals to adopt workplace-violence prevention policies and public reporting rather than creating a new state program. The Department of Labor and Industrial Relations said it appreciated the intent and explained that, absent a specific standard, enforcement would rely on OSHA’s general duty clause, guidance, and inspections. Nurses and the Hawaii Nurses Association gave emotional testimony describing harassment, threats, doxxing, and fears for patient and worker safety, arguing that existing processes were too slow and that hospitals needed immediate, enforceable requirements. The committee discussed current hospital alarm systems and OSHA enforcement, and Labor said it does inspect hospitals and can receive complaints from employees. HB 1532, concerning importation of large cigars and pipe tobacco, was announced as deferred at the request of the bill’s author so it could be refined with proponents and the Attorney General. The committee also discussed HB 1857, a very large measure redefining qualified health care provider and making extensive changes to health care law; the chair said the House would likely pass it without substantive changes and instead defer the effective date while using the Senate companion bill as the vehicle. Testimony on HB 1857 was generally supportive, including from the Hawaii Association of Nurse Anesthesiology and a certified genetic counselor, though both referenced proposed amendments. Finally, the committee heard HB 2209, which would require insurers to honor a patient’s written assignment of benefits to a substance use disorder treatment provider. The Insurance Division and HMSA opposed the bill as drafted, arguing it would create a special class of providers, raise fraud and litigation concerns, and potentially increase premiums. Treatment providers and advocates strongly supported the measure, saying insurers often refuse direct payment even when patients assign benefits, forcing families to front large sums and delaying access to residential treatment; they argued the bill would improve access and help keep care in Hawaii. A psychiatrist testified that he had not seen fraud in Hawaii and that the bill could help address long wait times for life-saving treatment. The committee also received written support from multiple individuals and organizations, and members began asking questions about HMSA’s network size and wait times, with follow-up information requested."}】【。final json to=commentary 天天中彩票出票 to=commentary code 彩神争霸邀请码 to=commentary 彩票平台招商 to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary ುತ್ತಾರೆ to=commentary

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, in this tax expenditure, four members suggested that the tax expenditure be continued.
• expenditure bundle. expenditure bundle.
• . expenditure. expenditure.
• expenditure and then I will conclude. expenditure and then I will conclude.
• tax expenditures.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Tax Expenditure Review Commission met on June 17, 2026, approved the January 20, 2026 minutes, and then adopted updated commission procedures. The procedural changes, presented by Legislative Budget Office Director Christian Larson, required a quorum of voting members to complete evaluations before a formal recommendation vote, and allowed members to bundle or unbundle tax expenditures for voting. The commission approved the revised procedures by roll call vote, with five ayes and four excused. The commission then reviewed member evaluation summaries for tax expenditures presented in December 2025 and January 2026. It first considered the alcoholic beverage tax credits for small brewers and microdistilleries, and after discussion voted to recommend repeal of those two expenditures, while leaving the small winery credit for a later meeting because it lacked enough member responses under the new procedures. The vote on the repeal recommendation passed 4-1, with Commissioner Marquart voting no. The commission next approved the lawful gambling bundle, which included bingo, raffle, and related exemptions. Larson reported that most members recommended continuation for each item, and the commission voted to recommend continuing all six lawful gambling expenditures. It then reviewed the residential utility services bundle—residential heating fuels, residential water services, and sewer services—where members generally favored continuation but several noted possible modifications or caps for higher-income users; the commission voted to recommend continuation of the bundle. Finally, the commission reviewed the data center equipment sales tax exemption, which Larson said had an estimated annual revenue loss of $95 million and was intended to create jobs in construction and data center industries. Members raised questions about its effectiveness and whether the exemption should be modified or capped, but the commission ultimately voted to recommend continuation. The meeting concluded with these recommendations set to be included in the commission’s 2026 annual report.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, as I mentioned, tax expenditures are different than direct expenditures.
• As with every report, there are some new tax expenditures. There were 15 new tax expenditures.
• As with every report, there are some new tax expenditures. There were 15 new tax expenditures.
• As with every report, there are some new tax expenditures. There were 15 new tax expenditures.
• expenditure.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Flurmont will cover an overview of tax expenditure evaluation, the landscape of tax expenditure evaluation
• . expenditure. expenditure.
• encompass 15 tax expenditures in total. encompass 15 tax expenditures in total.
• At least 26 states have laws on the books mandating tax expenditure evaluations, and tax expenditures
• tax expenditure. tax expenditure.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• . expenditure. expenditure.
• expenditures, they're in the slide deck. expenditures, they're in the slide deck.
• six lawful gambling tax expenditures. six lawful gambling tax expenditures.
• expenditure evaluations. expenditure evaluations.
• impacts of a single tax expenditure. impacts of a single tax expenditure.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This slide shows the total program expenditures, whereas the previous slide showed expenditures only
• these expenditure categories.
• On-the-job training or apprenticeship expenditures occur and On-the-job training or apprenticeship expenditures
• This last slide lists the expenditures from add-on FTE revenue as a percentage of total program expenditures
• Going back to slide 15, the other expenditures, were we hearing correctly that those other expenditures

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2025 session and received an overview of add-on weights in the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP), followed by a Department of Education presentation on a legislatively required study of add-on weight funding and expenditures. The chair explained that add-on weights apply to acceleration and career programs such as AP, IB, ACE, CAPE, dual enrollment, early graduation, and certain small-district needs, and noted that add-on funding has grown substantially as the base student allocation increased. The chair also raised concerns that the department’s report did not clearly show whether districts’ reported costs included the full costs required by the proviso, and asked for more specificity on any recommended adjustment to the weights. Deputy Commissioner Suzanne Pridgen said the department surveyed districts on how they spent add-on revenue for fiscal years 2021-22 through 2023-24, with categories including teacher compensation, materials, equipment, professional development, exam fees, counseling, apprenticeship costs, and other expenditures. She said most add-on funds were spent on teacher bonuses and compensation, with AP, ACE, CAPE, and dual enrollment showing the largest increases in spending in 2023-24 due to higher FEFP funding; IB and early graduation were relatively flat. The department reported that add-on revenue covered between 41.8% and 79.2% of total program expenditures in 2023-24 and recommended adjusting add-on weights to better align with pre-2023-24 funding relationships, though no specific percentage was given during the meeting. Members asked about how “other” expenditures were categorized, whether teacher compensation included only statutory bonuses, how dual enrollment tuition and fees were counted, the small district factor, and whether the weights incentivize districts to offer advanced programs. The department clarified that teacher compensation in the study referred only to bonuses, that some “other” costs included charter school payments and dual enrollment tuition/fees, and that the small district factor is 1.0277, increasing base funding by 2.77% for fiscally constrained counties. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• expenditures expenditures um<00:07:33.039> presented.
• encompassing 15 tax expenditures. encompassing 15 tax expenditures.
• we look at all of our tax expenditures. we look at all of our tax expenditures.
• tax expenditure budget um going forward. tax expenditure budget um going forward.
• associated with direct expenditure associated with direct expenditure programs.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• existing authority that the workforce commission has together workforce data to include revenues and expenditures

Bills: HR1055, SB2170, SB1833, SB1198, HR1056, SB1730, SB563, SB1379, SB1645, SB2155, SB1280, SB1455, SB1456, SB1461, SB1457, SB1463, SB1465, SB1466, SB1344, SB1309, HR1054, SB2159, SB1948, HB1371, SB1365, SB1976, SB1975, SB2026, SB1565, SB1621, SB237, SB933, SB1427, SB1642, SB171, SB1873, SB2067, SB1623, SB1771, SB1805, SB1826, SB2072, SB444, SB2184, SB1966, SB1812, SB2117, SB2135, SB330, SB1239, SB1428, SB1531, SB1484, SB1405, SB3

Keywords: Oklahoma Agriculture Day, agriculture, farmers, ranchers, agribusiness, food production, wheat, cattle, beef, dairy, soybeans, cotton, poultry, pork, rye, rural economy, urban-rural, trade, commodity production, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture

Bills: HR1055, SB2170, SB1833, SB1198, HR1056, SB1730, SB563, SB1379, SB1645, SB2155, SB1280, SB1455, SB1456, SB1461, SB1457, SB1463, SB1465, SB1466, SB1344, SB1309, HR1054, SB2159, SB1948, HB1371, SB1365, SB1976, SB1975, SB2026, SB1565, SB1621, SB237, SB933, SB1427, SB1642, SB171, SB1873, SB2067, SB1623, SB1771, SB1805, SB1826, SB2072, SB444, SB2184, SB1966, SB1812, SB2117, SB2135, SB330, SB1239, SB1428, SB1531, SB1484, SB1405, SB3

Keywords: Oklahoma Agriculture Day, agriculture, farmers, ranchers, agribusiness, food production, wheat, cattle, beef, dairy, soybeans, cotton, poultry, pork, rye, rural economy, urban-rural, trade, commodity production, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, we'll look at total expenditure data.
• Expenditures on classroom teachers accounted for almost one-half of total matrix expenditures from foundation
• Operations and maintenance were the second-highest expenditures, and expenditures on all other matrix
• And maintenance were the second-highest expenditures, and expenditures on all other matrix resources
• We are looking at the expenditures.

Summary: The joint education committee continued its adequacy study with a detailed Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, covering how Arkansas school districts and charters spend foundation and other funds on matrix and non-matrix items. Staff explained the methodology for mapping expenditures, the district and school categories used in the analysis, and key findings showing that districts spend more per student from all fund sources than the foundation amount alone. The presentation highlighted that classroom teachers account for the largest share of matrix spending, while operations and maintenance, student support staff, nurses, and other lines also drew significant attention. Members asked for additional breakdowns by district type, size, rural/urban status, and trend data, and several questions focused on how waivers affect funding and spending, especially for library media specialists and other positions. The committee then discussed non-matrix spending, including instructional aids, non-technology-related facilities, school safety, mental health services, dyslexia support, food service, gifted and talented, career and technical education, and other items not explicitly defined in the matrix. Staff reported that non-matrix spending exceeded $2 billion in 2025, with most of it coming from other fund sources, and that the top superintendent-identified unmet needs over recent surveys were mental health services, school safety, and dyslexia support. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, possible over-identification, and whether some support costs are being coded in ways that obscure the true spending picture. There was also discussion of facilities funding, the building fund, and the Department of Education’s partnership program for school construction and maintenance, with staff agreeing to provide more information and potentially bring department officials back for a future meeting. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly requested more granular data and clarifications, including waiver counts and funding impacts, trend lines for superintendent-reported needs, district-by-district spending spreadsheets, and definitions for certain matrix and accounting terms such as salary enhancement, LEA indebtedness, and other employee health insurance. The chair noted that the committee would continue the adequacy process over the coming months and use the worksheet in the binder to develop recommendations for the next biennium. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; instead, the committee received the report, asked for follow-up data, and agreed to continue the discussion at future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Operations and maintenance were the second-highest expenditures, and expenditures on all other matrix
• And maintenance were the second-highest expenditures, and expenditures on all other matrix resources
• We are looking at the expenditures.
• Building-related expenditures.
• So the next slide here is looking at total expenditures, zooming back out and looking at expenditures

Summary: The House/Joint Education committee continued its adequacy study with a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, focusing first on matrix spending and then non-matrix spending. Staff explained the methodology for mapping APSCN expenditure data to matrix lines, reviewed district and school categories used in the analysis, and highlighted key findings: foundation funding covered a large share of matrix costs but total spending on matrix items exceeded foundation funding, with classroom teachers making up the largest share. Members asked for additional breakdowns on waivers, superintendent survey responses, trend data, and spending by district type, size, and rural/urban status. Staff also noted limitations in tracking two matrix lines—salary enhancement for other employees and all personnel health insurance—because of coding and definition issues. The committee then reviewed non-matrix expenditures, including instructional aides, facilities, school safety, mental health, dyslexia services, gifted and talented, and career and technical education. Staff reported that non-matrix spending remained above $2 billion over the last three years, with most of it coming from other funds rather than foundation funding. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, mental health needs, school safety, food service, athletic transportation, and whether some items should be added to the matrix. The Department of Education clarified that the building fund reflects district-held funds for construction and maintenance projects, while the facilities partnership program is a separate state process for approved projects. In the final discussion, staff summarized total spending as more than $15,800 per student in 2025, with about 69% going to matrix resources and 31% to non-matrix resources. The chair explained the adequacy process and the committee’s role in setting future funding recommendations, and members discussed the recommendations worksheet included in the binder. The chair then proposed postponing the remainder of Part Two of the presentation until a May meeting after the fiscal session, along with inviting the Department of Education back for more detailed questions; with no objections, the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, we'll look at total expenditure data.
• Expenditures on classroom teachers accounted for almost one-half of total matrix expenditures from foundation
• Operations and maintenance were the second-highest expenditures, and expenditures on all other matrix
• We are looking at the expenditures.
• So the next slide here is looking at total expenditures, so zooming back out, looking at expenditures

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The joint education committee continued its adequacy study with a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, covering how Arkansas school spending is mapped to the adequacy matrix and how expenditures are split between foundation funds and other funding sources. Staff explained the methodology, district and school categories used for comparisons, and key findings for matrix spending, including that classroom teachers account for the largest share of matrix expenditures and that districts spend more per student than charter districts in most categories. Members asked for additional breakdowns on waivers, trend data, and more detailed spending by district type, and staff agreed to provide follow-up information. The committee then reviewed non-matrix spending, including instructional aides, facilities, school safety, mental health services, dyslexia support, gifted and talented, career and technical education, and other items not explicitly in the matrix. Staff noted that non-matrix spending exceeded $2 billion and that superintendents consistently identified mental health services, school safety, and dyslexia support as important needs not fully captured in the matrix. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, school safety, facilities spending, and whether some items such as food service should be included in adequacy calculations. Staff and Department of Education representatives explained that some expenditures are difficult to isolate because of coding and commingled funds, and that certain items are funded outside the matrix or through separate programs. In the final section, staff summarized total spending across matrix and non-matrix items, noting that districts spent more than the foundation amount per student and that most total spending was on matrix resources. They also highlighted data limitations, including two matrix lines that cannot be fully tracked through current accounting codes. The chair then proposed postponing the second part of the presentation until a May meeting after the fiscal session, with additional time set aside to address questions for both staff and the Department of Education. The committee agreed, and the meeting adjourned without any formal vote on policy changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• So if we take that expenditure breakout one step further and we say the top 10 largest expenditures as
• In terms of expenditure One expenditure for some of the counties.
• In terms of their expenditure, 35%.
• Their largest expenditure group, their largest single expenditure is conservation resource management
• And is it because the expenditures are not taking into a... And the expenditures.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for a listening session focused on a presentation by Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research on local government revenues and expenditures. Baker reviewed statewide financial data for counties, municipalities, and independent special districts, using 2018-19 as a baseline year because it was stable and pre-COVID. She explained that counties rely heavily on taxes, with ad valorem taxes making up about 73% of county tax revenue and about 24% of total county revenues statewide, while municipalities rely more on charges for services and have a lower statewide ad valorem share of about 14.7%. She also noted wide variation across local governments, with some counties and cities highly dependent on property taxes and others using them minimally or not at all. Special districts were shown to be very different from counties and cities, with hospital-related revenues and expenditures dominating many of them, while water management districts were more reliant on ad valorem taxes and focused expenditures on the physical environment. Baker also summarized expenditure patterns: counties spent the largest share on public safety, while municipalities spent the largest share on general government services, followed by physical environment and public safety. She emphasized that local government structures vary widely and that the committee should study what characteristics are associated with greater property tax reliance. She said the next research steps would be to extend the analysis through later years, including the COVID and inflation period, and to examine institutional and legal factors that shape local fiscal structures. Members asked about unfunded mandates, fuel taxes, reserves, school taxes, millage rates, and how property taxes relate to specific services such as police and fire. Baker said the current analysis did not yet account for mandates or school taxes and that further work could examine links between revenues and expenditures, commercial versus residential tax burdens, and other factors. After the presentation, members reported back on local meetings with counties and municipalities. Several described large differences in millage rates, revenue mixes, and the impact of any property tax changes on fiscally constrained counties versus larger, wealthier ones. Concerns were raised about how local governments would replace lost revenue, especially for public safety and emergency response, and members discussed the need to consider both revenue replacement and ways to rein in spending. The co-chairs said the committee would continue gathering information, send members follow-up homework and requests for panel suggestions, and invite additional input from constituents, stakeholders, and local governments. The meeting ended with no votes or formal actions beyond adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• a new tax expenditure.
• a new tax expenditure.
• a new tax expenditure.
• a new tax expenditure.
• a new tax expenditure.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• One expenditure we noted was a want. One expenditure we noted was a what? what? what?
• worth of expenditures on those cards. worth of expenditures on those cards.
• expenditures, um, as you said, Mr. expenditures, um, as you said, Mr.
• <00:53:20.480> Expenditures<00:53:21.040> on expenditures on here.
• Expenditures on expenditures on here.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Cabinet for Health and Family Services 00:00:30 Kentucky Department of Education 00:27:10 Education and Labor Cabinet 00:31:35 Auditor of Public Accounts 00:36:55, 958, all

Summary: The committee met for a budget-only discussion with no bills scheduled for a vote. Members first welcomed a group of high school guests, then heard from the Cabinet for Health and Family Services on funding issues for child advocacy centers, domestic violence centers, rape crisis centers, and SNAP. DCBS Commissioner Lisa Dennis and budget director Misty Sammons said the victim-services programs were included in the current baseline budget, but it was too early in the budget process to know final funding levels. They said earlier reports of major cuts were based on a misunderstanding, that conversations with the agencies were ongoing, and that they would provide the committee with the agency’s base-budget information. A member also asked about domestic violence shelter funding, and the cabinet explained that prior one-time money had been used to replace lost federal Victims of Crime Act funds. On SNAP, the cabinet said Kentucky does not expect to need additional money for benefit costs because the payment error rate is about 4%, below the threshold that would trigger added state costs. However, they said the federal HR1 change shifting SNAP administrative costs from a 50/50 state-federal split to 75% state and 25% federal will require additional funding to operate the program. Members praised the eligibility and family support staff for keeping error rates low and asked to be notified quickly if more implementation support is needed. Representative Bojanowski asked whether a specific SNAP administrative cost figure was already in House Bill 500; the cabinet said it was not, and that such an item would be an additional budget request not included in the bill. The committee then heard from the Department for Medicaid Services. Commissioner Lisa Lee and Senior Deputy Commissioner Veronica Judy Cecil described Medicaid fraud-and-abuse monitoring, including a new CMS file and guidance on concurrent enrollment across states. They said DMS refers suspected fraud or abuse to the Attorney General’s office and that the relationship is working well. When asked about using AI, they said the department is not yet using AI but does use internal algorithms to flag potential fraud, waste, and abuse. Finally, Eric Lowry of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services discussed fiscal note processing, saying House Bill 2 is a complex Medicaid bill and that the cabinet is working to set up a meeting with the sponsor; he said the cabinet is responding and hopes to meet on Monday. The committee also briefly heard from the Kentucky Department of Education, where Matt Ross said the existing $7.4 million for school-based mental health services is already in the base budget and that no additional language is needed in House Bill 500 to distribute it, though KDE has requested additional funding to raise the overall appropriation to $18 million.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it also speaks to the nature of tax expenditures because tax expenditures can have the same effect
• expenditure report.
• tax expenditures.
• That table shows what the expenditure is, the amount, and the share of the total expenditures.
• tax expenditure.

Transcript Highlights:

• The next section represents expenditures.
• And then you will see two categories of expenditures: maintenance-level expenditures, again, those being
• those mandatory expenditures as calculated by staff, and then policy-level expenditures.
• And then you will see two categories of expenditures: maintenance-level expenditures, again, those being
• those mandatory expenditures as calculated by staff, and then policy-level expenditures.

Summary: The committee held its first meeting, with co-chairs and members introducing themselves and staff outlining the committee’s statutory mandate under the 2025-27 supplemental operating budget. Staff explained that the Joint Legislative-Executive Committee on Budget Transparency and Fiscal Sustainability will receive technical assistance from a nonpartisan organization, with work split into two phases: first on revenue growth, spending assumptions, and cost drivers in the four-year outlook, and later on staffing, overhead, performance management, and public reporting. Members broadly said they hoped the committee would build a shared factual understanding of the state’s fiscal situation, structural deficits, and budget processes, and identify a sustainable path forward for the operating budget. Staff then gave a detailed presentation on operating budget basics. They reviewed the size and composition of the operating budget, noting that most spending is concentrated in grants/client services and salaries/benefits, with K-12, DSHS, HCA, DCYF, DOC, and higher education making up most NGFO spending. They explained the distinction between constitutional, federal, statutory, and discretionary spending, using examples such as K-12, Medicaid, collective bargaining agreements, court-driven obligations like McCleary and Trueblood, and one-time appropriations. They also walked through how the state uses incremental budgeting, carry-forward and maintenance-level calculations, caseload and per-capita forecasting, and the four-year balanced budget outlook, including reserve calculations and the budget stabilization account. Members asked extensive questions about what is and is not included in the outlook, especially future collective bargaining agreements, health care and compensation growth, tort and other liabilities, and whether the state could better distinguish mandatory from discretionary spending. Staff explained that current CBAs and other already-enacted obligations are included, but future CBAs are not; some liabilities are reflected as expenditures when appropriated, while broader long-term liabilities are not fully captured in the outlook because they depend on future policy choices. Staff also noted that the legislature and ERFC can adopt assumptions such as reversions and growth factors, and that an outlook accuracy report is produced every five years to compare projected and actual maintenance-level spending. The committee agreed to follow up on some of the more complex liability and assumption questions. After a short break, Josh Goodman of the Pew Charitable Trusts began a presentation on Pew’s role and approach to state fiscal sustainability. He described Pew as a nonpartisan organization with long-standing state fiscal research, emphasizing its 50-state comparative data, interviews with state officials and experts, and focus on long-term sustainability, reserve policies, and recession preparedness. The presentation was ongoing when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:43:08.920> that these um independent expenditures that these um independent expenditures
• It says a corporation may not make an expenditure, offer, agree to make an expenditure to promote or
• defeat the candidacy of an individual unless the expenditure is an independent expenditure.
• what we call independent expenditures what we call independent expenditures not<00:58:56.280>
• <01:01:50.640> folks expenditure folks expenditure folks um<01:01:53.520> section<01:01

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, what is a tax expenditure report? Also sometimes called a tax expenditure budget.
• Be tax expenditures.
• We wouldn't consider that a tax expenditure.
• Expenditures, but we do a write-up on them at the end of the report under the non-tax expenditures.
• Is it an expenditure or not?

Keywords: 996, all