Transcript Highlights:

• Let's go back, let's go back to the fact that these projects are not state projects.
• They can afford to pay prevailing wage. Otherwise they're paying minimum wage.
• They come back, we put them on a different job, and we put them back out to work. But Mr.
• I look at those pay scales.
• Why it's back here. Today.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what we're doing now is taking those back payments, which is like having a credit card and paying
• So part of that money is effectively paying back payments.
• First thing out of your budget is pay that pension obligation. So, we got to go ahead and pay it.
• pays a percentage of that.
• pays a percentage of that.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Education met without a quorum, so the minutes were not approved. The main presentation was from retired economics professors John Garren and Dr. Kums, who discussed their Bluegrass Institute research on teacher compensation in Kentucky since the Kentucky Education Reform Act era. They said teacher base salaries, adjusted for inflation, have declined over the last decade, while state-paid “on-behalf” benefits such as pension and health insurance contributions have risen sharply; they argued total teacher compensation has increased modestly overall, but less than per-pupil funding. They also presented broader context on staffing growth, declining average daily attendance, Kentucky’s low share of teachers among total school staff, and flat or weak NAEP and ACT performance trends, including widening white-Black score gaps on NAEP. Members questioned the methodology and interpretation of the compensation figures. Representative Bojanowski argued the on-behalf calculations may overstate teacher compensation because they include insurance and pension costs that also benefit classified employees and retirees, and he asked for clarification on the denominator used to derive the per-teacher amount. Representative Truit said the presentation could be misleading if it implies teachers earn $94,000 in salary, and he objected to framing pension stabilization payments as teacher pay. The presenters responded that they were using total compensation, not salary alone, said they had divided total personnel-related on-behalf payments by the relevant staff count, and promised to review and send a technical explanation. Representative Truit and Chairman Typton both emphasized that compensation should be viewed as salary plus benefits, not salary alone, and noted that pension contributions are part of the cost of employing teachers. The presenters said their intent was to show the full compensation package and its relevance to labor supply and teacher shortages, not to claim that individual teachers earn the total compensation figure as salary. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond the decision to revisit the minutes at a later meeting due to the lack of quorum.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay. back. She says she can't find her back.
• a lot of money upfront, and we want to make sure the enterprises have the ability to pay them back when
• a lot of money upfront, and we want to make sure the enterprises have the ability to pay them back when
• And that occurred in 2010. way back then and not under the way back then and not under the insurance<
• by the board to give that money back. by the board to give that money back.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up several insurance-related bills. Senate Bill 47, concerning health insurance policies related to the birth of the mother, was moved ought to pass with no amendments and was approved on a 6-0 vote. Senate Bill 121, dealing with Medicare Advantage plan notice requirements, was amended to reduce the required notice from 120 days to 90 days and to remove a federal citation; the department said the change was to avoid conflict with federal notice rules. After discussion about the stress caused when carriers leave the Medicare Advantage market, the committee voted ought to pass as amended, 7-0. The committee then heard a detailed explanation of the continuing care retirement communities bill, described by the Insurance Department as a rewrite of a 1989 law to modernize oversight, require quarterly financial reporting as an early warning system, create a bill of rights for residents, and clarify issues such as entrance fees and removal of dangerous residents. A member recalled the bill’s original purpose as protecting solvency because residents pay substantial upfront fees. The bill was moved ought to pass and approved unanimously, 7-0. The final major discussion concerned a pooled risk organizations bill. Members debated whether oversight should remain with the Secretary of State or be moved to the Insurance Department. Supporters of moving it argued the issue is solvency, citing concerns about reserve levels, prior insolvencies, and the Insurance Department’s expertise. Opponents said the Secretary of State’s office had historically overseen the entities and that the bill would fundamentally change how they operate. A straw vote favored an amendment, but the committee ultimately voted to retain the bill for further work, with plans to revisit it later in the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think, you know, back in December, we voted on that policy and then we came back and Said, "Gosh, darn
• What this proposal does is adjust the pay bands for inflation so that the pay bands, which do dictate
• This pay band, there's a midpoint stated in all pay bands. Midpoint is stated in all pay bands.
• The pay band issue here, so I just want to bring that up.
• The pay bands, I'm not entirely sure.

Transcript Highlights:

• pay the timber tax. pay the timber tax.
• years and pay the yield tax. years and pay the yield tax.
• And that's when the only time I would pay that yield back, but I guess it would be likened to if I had
• but would pay that yield back, but would pay that yield back, but I<01:20:34.400> guess<01
• I pay I pay property tax on the land.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting opened with a quorum present and approval of the April 17 minutes. The commission then heard a presentation from attorney Jacob Rhodes of Cleveland, Waters and Bass on the history and legal basis of New Hampshire’s timber tax, explaining that timber was historically treated as part of real property, that a 1913 case confirmed that view, and that a 1949 constitutional amendment created a separate timber yield tax to discourage clear-cutting and support forest conservation. He described the tax as a tax on the yield when timber is severed, not an income tax, and noted that towns are reimbursed through a system based on Department of Revenue Administration market data and local reports of cut. Members and guests asked how “yield” is defined, how the timber tax interacts with current use, and whether carbon sequestration could be treated similarly. Testimony explained that current use generally is not affected by harvesting timber, that towns can tax standing timber under RSA 79:5 but rarely do because it is labor-intensive, and that carbon credits might be valued using a similar market-data approach. Several speakers discussed a prior bill drafted with DRA input that would have treated carbon more like timber, but noted it never fully advanced in the General Court and that the version ultimately discussed by the House differed from the earlier DRA-comfortable draft. The discussion also covered whether carbon sequestration agreements are effectively long-term leases or transfers of timber rights, with Rhodes suggesting that 99-year arrangements could be taxable transfers of real property under DRA rules, though he had not reviewed specific agreements. DRA staff said they do not currently have a timber-like survey mechanism for carbon and would likely need access to proprietary market data or a subscription service to build one. No formal vote was taken beyond approving the minutes; the commission appeared to agree to revisit the carbon/timber valuation issue and the draft bill at a future meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Come back.
• And so we feel like because they're already paying. They shouldn't have to pay for something twice.
• They can't afford to pay their taxes. They're paying penalties and interest.
• work those values back down.
• that money back into the public coffers.

Bills: HB1952, HB3258, HB3524, HB3851, HB4478, HB4613, HB4703, HB4742, HB4744, HB4809, HB4864

Keywords: county appraisal district, board of directors, governance, taxing units, public representation, penalty, property report, taxation, timely filing, chief appraiser, appraisal district, ad valorem tax, property appraisal, tax protests, unequal appraisal, property rights, property tax, public employees, protest leave, appraisal review board

Transcript Highlights:

• These are essentially now cash-paying patients.
• Cash-paying patients have the Options of what they can pay for provided to them in terms of an a la carte
• they're knowing what they're paying for for each service.
• Back on the bill as amended. Senator, take over.
• The program is not paying for the entire fortified roof; it is helping pay for the fortified roof.

Bills: SB1732, SB1217, SB1443, SB1455, SB1457, SB1459, SB1465, SB1944, SB1946, SB1218, SB1942, SB1352, SB2132, SB1920, SB1285, SB1304, SB1305, SB1326, SB1590, SB1767

Keywords: professional licensing, licensing fees, home inspection, home inspector, Construction Industries Board, CIB, contractor license, journeyman license, apprentice registration, alarm endorsement, code inspector, electrical license, plumbing license, mechanical license, permit fees, renewal fee, reciprocity, poultry house contractor, poultry house wiring, environmentally controlled poultry house

Transcript Highlights:

• . back. back.
• kind of wait back sit back and wait kind of wait back sit back and wait because<02:03:52.920>
• And so we're<03:39:25.600> back<03:39:25.920> here we're back here we're back here yet<
• And can we just back it mental illness. And can we just back it up?
• care that they they pay for. care that they they pay for.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 562, which would create a home damage mitigation and resilience grant program aimed at helping homeowners make property improvements that could reduce insurance costs and non-renewals. Commissioner DJ Bettencourt of the New Hampshire Insurance Department explained that the program is modeled in part on Alabama’s safer homes program, but tailored for New Hampshire hazards such as floods, microbursts, heavy snow, ice, and falling trees. He said the grants would be limited to primary residences, subject to a means test, capped at $10,000, and intended to help homeowners make targeted improvements such as roof fortification or tree removal that could improve underwriting outcomes and lead to premium discounts. Bettencourt said the program would not use state taxpayer funds and would instead rely on philanthropic donations, possible federal or regional housing-bank funding, and other outside sources. He said the department would not need new staff, and that a current position could be reconfigured to help administer the program part-time. Committee members asked about the funding language, the meaning of “loans” in the bill, whether there were any other states using a similar no-state-funds model, and how many homeowners could be helped. Bettencourt said Rhode Island and Connecticut were moving forward in a similar way, and that the number of beneficiaries would depend on how much money is raised. Members also questioned how the grant program would actually lower premiums, whether savings would apply only to participants or more broadly, and how the IBHS evaluation process would work. Bettencourt and department staff said the direct benefit would be to the homeowner whose property is improved, though neighbors could also benefit in some cases. They explained that IBHS is a building-safety organization that certifies contractors and inspectors and that its standards can qualify homes for insurer discounts. Questions were also raised about confidentiality provisions, first-come-first-served grant awards, rollover of unused applications, and possible tax treatment of donations. The sponsor said those details would be addressed through rulemaking or existing tax rules, and no vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It has brought hope back to our community and we pray that back to our community and we pray that back
• them paying them more money and paying them paying them more money and paying them paying them more
• Principles get their pay. There's a pay all that stuff. Principle There's a pay all that stuff.
• and the 8% you pay 10% you may pay and the 8% you pay 10% you may pay and the 8% you pay online. online
• Come back up. Okay. My my fault. Come back up. Okay. My my fault. Come back up.

Bills: HB 29, HB 125, HB 145, HB 171, HB 255, HB 50, HB 796, HB 363, HB 116, HB 491, HB 589, HB 1495, HB 368, HB 1285, HB 1905, HB 1360, HB 2002, HB 917, HB 2723, HB 2067, HB 1238, HB 2337, HB 745, HB 1188, HB 1606, HB 2003, HB 2147, HB 2391, HB 2355, HB 2546, HB 2495, HB 2818, HB 2249, HB 1749, HB 3109, HB 3228, HB 3240, HB 1507, HB 658, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2001, HB 2798, HB 107, HCR 29, SB 5, SB 262, HB 11, HJR 72, HB 106, HB 18, HB 48, HB 27, HB 37, HB 1481, HB 581, HB 1696, HB 2216, HB 1035, HB 1633, HB 742, HB 754, HB 1689, HB 1690, HB 2669, HB 391, HB 517, HB 1024, HB 1607, HB 252, HB 1716, HB 1562, HB 4116, HB 1866, HB 1741, HB 2103, HB 2637, HB 2884, HB 503, HB 1089, HB 2986, HB 972, HB 502, HB 29, HB 125, HB 145, HB 171, HB 255, HB 50, HB 796, HB 363, HB 116, HB 491, HB 589, HB 1495, HB 368, HB 1285, HB 1905, HB 1360, HB 2002, HB 917, HB 2723, HB 2067, HB 1238, HB 2337, HB 745, HB 1188, HB 1606, HB 2003, HB 2147, HB 2391, HB 2355, HB 2546, HB 2495, HB 2818, HB 2249, HB 1749, HB 3109, HB 3228, HB 3240, HB 1507, HB 658, HB 1748, HB 1851, HB 1922, HB 2001, HB 2798, HB 107, HCR 29

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's my back story. And I'll come back to this.
• we need to pay out.
• I'm going to jump back.
• Back in the day, you used to go to, like, a pay phone. Well, we still have pay phones. You do.
• Are we going to have to pay the money back?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Ways and Means held its sixth public hearing on the Governor’s H-2 budget proposal for fiscal year 2026, focused on public safety and judiciary agencies, at the Foxborough Community Center. After opening remarks and local welcomes, the committee heard first from the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, led by Secretary Gina Kwan, who outlined a $1.72 billion budget, up $69.8 million from FY26. She said the proposal emphasizes core operations, readiness, and partnerships with municipalities, and highlighted work on firearms-law implementation, State Police reform, DOC reentry efforts, hate-crimes prevention, emergency response, and planning for major events including the World Cup. Members also raised concerns about DNA backlog reporting, State Police academy boxing and training standards, ICE communication, disaster relief funding, crime lab staffing, EMS placement, and diversity in public safety leadership. Several exchanges focused on specific operational issues. Secretary Kwan and her team said the State Police are tracking the influx of forensic work from local sheriffs, that the boxing program remains suspended pending an IACP review and likely will not return in its prior form, and that EOPS has no direct communication with ICE but supports law-enforcement coordination where appropriate. On disaster preparedness, officials said the new disaster relief fund is being developed with MEMA and A&F, currently capitalized at $14 million with another $14 million expected, though members urged a more permanent funding source. On the crime lab, staff said the roughly $4.5 million increase is intended to cover core operations and a structural funding gap rather than expand services. The secretary also said EOPS is not ready to absorb OEMS from DPH at this time, though she would keep an open mind. The committee then heard from district attorneys, led by Suffolk County DA Kevin Hayden, who said the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association is seeking a 10% increase in operating budgets, including about $16.7 million for staffing salaries, to recruit and retain prosecutors, advocates, and support staff. He said the request reflects rising workload and the need to keep the criminal justice system functioning efficiently and fairly. The hearing was recessed briefly after the district attorneys’ opening remarks, with additional testimony expected to continue afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• 70% and the pipelines paying 30%.
• to pay for.
• And uh it talks about paying to pay for.
• license, it would be things like paying license, it would be things like paying for<00:48:53.359
• , for the test, paying for the um class, paying<00:48:58.160> for<00:48:58.960> any<00:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , when they pay, who they pay to, how their benefits are received, etc.
• who<00:13:32.640> they<00:13:32.800> pay who pays, when they pay, who they pay who
• pays, when they pay, who they pay to,<00:13:33.960> how<00:13:34.120> their<00:13:34.280
• still paying off to this day. still paying off to this day.
• that use it pay for the system. that use it pay for the system.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Roll Call: 00:36 HB 732 Discussion: 02:00 HB 732 Vote: 20:55 SB 343 Discussion: 23:39 SB 343 Vote: 28:54 SB 129 Discussion: 30:30 SB 129 Vote: 32:27, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• He was so good he came back and we hired him.
• Fast forward, I found myself back here in 2010.
• 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

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:

• that back.
• that back.
• You can either give it back as an income tax refund, or you can do it back as property tax.
• ...back of that van.
• Homeowners, those who pay taxes, are going to get some money back.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's not a matter of pay it now, pay it later so much as it is a matter of pay what you owe because
• If we were to look at it as just pay it now, pay it later, our problem becomes we need the money now.
• less because H.R. 1 conformity would have them paying less, then next year they'd have to pay more.
• We're back to a motion to move the bill as amended now. Mr.
• How are we going to pay for it?' We have no idea.

Bills: SB1638

Keywords: taxation, income tax, internal revenue code, deductions, tax benefits, retroactive, standard deduction, 1182, all

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee took up SB 1638, a tax conformity bill that would update Arizona’s tax code to the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026 and incorporate federal changes from 2025. The bill also included individual income tax subtractions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, along with changes to the standard deduction and charitable contribution deduction. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether Arizona should conform broadly to federal changes or limit the bill to more targeted, temporary provisions. Two amendments were considered. The chair’s amendment was described as clarifying only, addressing retroactivity and foreign dividend language, and it was adopted. Senator Epstein’s amendment would have removed the broader conformity provisions and the modified charitable deduction, limited the standard deduction change to tax year 2025, and kept the individual subtractions; she argued the business-related conformity items mainly benefited corporations and should be negotiated in the budget. Opponents said the amendment would create unnecessary recalculations and uncertainty for taxpayers and businesses, while supporters of the underlying bill said conformity was needed quickly to match Department of Revenue forms and avoid filing-season confusion. Epstein’s amendment failed. Public testimony split along similar lines. Business and tax group representatives supported prompt conformity, saying taxpayers and small businesses needed certainty and that the department’s forms should be codified. Opponents argued the bill would reduce state revenue substantially and mainly benefit higher-income taxpayers and corporations, while diverting money from education, child care, and health care. After debate, the committee voted to move SB 1638 as amended with a do-pass recommendation, passing it by about 4-3, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Back to page one, let's go.
• I think this is really what I ought to pay you, and then you just pay whatever that is.
• So does your department pay for that? Who pays for that?
• the state paying for that person?
• for that who pays for So does your department pay for that who pays for that and in the other case that

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The House Commerce Committee of Reference heard sunset reviews and a performance audit presentation for the Arizona Department of Gaming, the Racing Commission, the Boxing and MMA Commission, and later the Arizona Barbering and Cosmetology Board. The Auditor General reported that the Department of Gaming and the commissions generally met some statutory duties, but identified several problems: the department did not consistently obtain and review independent audits for event wagering and fantasy sports operators; the department and commissions had gaps in conflict-of-interest disclosures; the department and Boxing and MMA Commission lacked comprehensive complaint-handling processes; the department was late distributing some compact trust fund payments; and there were additional issues involving IT security, horse-racing license checks, fee reviews, public records practices, and licensing compliance. The Auditor General said the department agreed to implement all 36 recommendations, the Racing Commission agreed to six recommendations, and the Boxing and MMA Commission agreed to 13 recommendations. The department director said many fixes were already underway, including updated guidance, complaint tracking improvements, and a historical look-back on operator reporting, and she also discussed efforts to combat illegal gambling and educate minors and families about gambling risks. Committee members questioned the department about third-party audits, penalties for underpayments, public records handling, conflict-of-interest screening, and the department’s position on prediction markets and suitability standards for licensees. The director said the department would review past reports, could assess fines if violations were found, and would generally wait for final adjudication or final action in other jurisdictions before taking Arizona licensing action. After discussion, the committee voted to recommend the Department of Gaming be continued for two years until July 1, 2028, the Racing Commission for six years until July 1, 2032, and the Boxing and MMA Commission for six years until July 1, 2032. The Department of Gaming motion passed 7-4, the Racing Commission motion passed 10-1, and the Boxing and MMA Commission motion passed unanimously. The committee then heard the Auditor General’s report on the Arizona Barbering and Cosmetology Board. The audit found the board timely processed many licenses and complaints and had adopted curriculum rules, but it inconsistently applied its disciplinary guidelines, sometimes issuing different sanctions for similar violations without documenting the reasons for deviation. The report also found problems with reciprocity education requirements, application review controls, inspections, and compliance with open meeting, public records, and conflict-of-interest requirements, and it suggested possible statutory changes on aesthetics scope of practice, cease-and-desist authority, and training standards for I-LEST technicians. The board agreed with the findings and said it had already updated disciplinary parameters and documentation policies, with more recommendations in progress; committee members asked about discretion in discipline, audit funding, and service efficiency, and the board highlighted its licensing volume, call response, inspections, and complaint handling performance.

Transcript Highlights:

• to the fund, so many counties pay more in a motor fuels tax than they get back in the last year.
• Payers to pay after they got that issue resolved and the office opened back up to the public.
• I Basically, I will get back with our team who provided the back We do not have them here at this time
• Dell came back.
• The arrangement, 37.5%, was rebated back to the company that stayed in our community but isn't paying

Bills: HB134, HB135, HB 1109, HB 1243, HB1392, HB1399, HJR99, HB134, HB135

Keywords: sales tax, use tax, local tax, municipal tax, county tax, tax sourcing, place of business, principal business location, small business, retailer, marketplace seller, economic development agreement, Chapter 321, Chapter 323, Tax Code, Texas Comptroller, local sales and use tax, tax jurisdiction, order consummation, ship-to location

Transcript Highlights:

• experts, you have to self-pay for them. experts, you have to self-pay for them.
• can be required to pay for treatment. can be required to pay for treatment.
• They are given loans for their costs of coming to the United States, which they pay back.
• clothes on their back. clothes on their back.
• the United States, which they pay back. the United States, which they pay back.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I yield back,<00:14:42.480> Mr.<00:14:42.800> Chair. back, Mr. Chair. back, Mr.
• I yield back. Jackets. In God we trust. I yield back.
• without pay, but we ought to pay them. without pay, but we ought to pay them.
• I<00:55:58.319> yield<00:55:58.640> back. I yield back. I yield back.
• and I yield back. and I yield back.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, February 25, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're back in regular session and it.
• money so they can pay for it back over 10 years.
• <00:36:17.760> Now,<00:36:18.079> if pay for it back over 10 years.
• Now, if pay for it back over 10 years.
• But revenues above plan are what we put into the budget to pay off back-of-the-budget cuts in certain

Keywords: 1191, senate, all